Internal Audits of Health and Safety Systems — Japan

Internal audit of health and safety systems means a systematic examination of an organisation's workplace safety and occupational-health arrangements to determine whether they comply with applicable laws, internal rules, risk-control procedures, training requirements, incident-reporting systems and preventive measures.

In Japan, the main legal framework is the Industrial Safety and Health Act (ISHA), supported by the Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance and other regulations. The Act's purpose includes securing workers' safety and health and promoting comfortable working environments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of preventive measures, employer responsibility and appropriate management of workplace risks.

1. Meaning of Internal Health and Safety Audit

An internal health and safety audit is an independent and documented review conducted within an organisation. It examines whether the organisation:

• identifies workplace hazards;
• assesses occupational risks;
• follows safety procedures;
• provides appropriate safety and health training;
• maintains machinery and protective equipment;
• monitors working conditions;
• records accidents and near-misses;
• conducts health examinations where required;
• manages working hours and fatigue risks;
• responds to complaints and safety concerns;
• investigates workplace accidents;
• takes corrective and preventive action; and
• complies with the Industrial Safety and Health Act and related regulations.

The purpose is not merely to discover violations after an accident. A properly designed audit should identify risks before they result in injury, illness or death.

2. Legal Basis in Japan

The Industrial Safety and Health Act places substantial responsibility on employers to protect workers.

For example, the Act requires employers to take necessary measures against health impairments arising from substances, dust, gases, radiation, excessive temperatures, noise, vibration and other workplace hazards. It also requires appropriate workplace conditions relating to ventilation, lighting, passages, sanitation and similar matters.

The Act also contains requirements concerning:

• safety and health education;
• appointment of responsible safety personnel in applicable workplaces;
• prevention of dangerous operations;
• machinery and equipment safety;
• hazardous substances;
• working environments;
• medical examinations;
• health management; and
• prevention of industrial accidents.

Therefore, an internal audit should test not only whether a written policy exists but whether the policy is actually implemented in daily operations.

3. Objectives of Internal Health and Safety Audits

A. Legal compliance

The first objective is to determine whether the organisation complies with applicable health and safety legislation.

An audit may check:

• statutory safety requirements;
• required workplace inspections;
• training records;
• medical examination records;
• machinery inspection records;
• chemical-management records;
• accident reports; and
• corrective-action records.

B. Hazard identification

The auditor examines whether the organisation has identified all significant hazards.

Examples include:

• dangerous machinery;
• chemicals;
• asbestos;
• excessive noise;
• heat;
• electrical hazards;
• falling objects;
• fire;
• unsafe work at height;
• ergonomic hazards;
• excessive working hours; and
• psychological stress.

C. Risk assessment

The organisation should not merely list hazards. It should determine:

1. what can go wrong;
2. who may be affected;
3. how serious the consequences could be;
4. how frequently the risk may arise; and
5. what controls are necessary.

D. Prevention of accidents

Audit findings should be used to prevent accidents rather than simply document them.

For example, if an audit discovers that machine guards are regularly removed, management should investigate the reason and implement corrective measures.

E. Protection of physical and mental health

Modern health and safety audits must cover both physical and psychological health.

This includes:

• excessive overtime;
• fatigue;
• workload;
• workplace stress;
• harassment-related risks;
• mental-health support;
• return-to-work arrangements; and
• managerial response to signs of deterioration.

The Japanese Supreme Court has recognised an employer's duty of care concerning employees' physical and mental health when assigning and managing work.

4. Major Areas Examined During an Internal Audit

A. Safety policy

The auditor should determine whether the organisation has a clear health and safety policy.

The policy should identify:

• management responsibilities;
• employee responsibilities;
• reporting procedures;
• emergency arrangements;
• accident prevention;
• training requirements; and
• continuous improvement.

A policy that exists only on paper but is not followed should be treated as an audit deficiency.

B. Risk assessment

Auditors should examine whether risk assessments are:

• documented;
• regularly reviewed;
• updated after accidents;
• updated after changes in machinery or processes;
• communicated to workers; and
• accompanied by actual preventive measures.

C. Machinery and equipment

The audit should examine:

• machine guards;
• emergency stops;
• maintenance;
• inspection schedules;
• electrical safety;
• lifting equipment;
• safety interlocks; and
• worker training.

A key audit question is whether employees can bypass safety mechanisms and whether management knows about it.

D. Hazardous substances

The auditor should verify:

• chemical inventories;
• safety information;
• labelling;
• storage;
• handling procedures;
• protective equipment;
• exposure controls;
• worker training; and
• emergency procedures.

This is particularly important for substances such as asbestos and other hazardous chemicals.

The Supreme Court's asbestos decisions demonstrate why organisations should not treat hazardous-substance controls as merely administrative matters.

E. Personal Protective Equipment

The audit should check whether appropriate PPE is:

• identified;
• available;
• suitable;
• properly maintained;
• actually used;
• replaced when necessary; and
• supported by appropriate training.

Japanese safety regulations have specifically addressed the preparation, maintenance and use of protective equipment in hazardous workplaces.

F. Safety and health training

The organisation should maintain evidence that workers receive appropriate training.

Audit checks may include:

• induction training;
• job-specific training;
• machinery training;
• hazardous-substance training;
• emergency training;
• refresher training; and
• training following changes in job duties.

The Industrial Safety and Health Act contains requirements concerning safety and health education when workers are newly employed or their work changes.

5. Workplace Health Auditing

An effective audit should examine health-management systems as well as physical safety.

Areas may include:

• periodic health examinations;
• occupational physician arrangements;
• exposure monitoring;
• fatigue management;
• stress management;
• workplace sanitation;
• ventilation;
• temperature;
• noise;
• lighting; and
• return-to-work procedures.

The auditor should verify whether health information is appropriately handled and whether management takes preventive action when health risks are identified.

6. Working Hours and Fatigue

Working hours are an important component of occupational health.

The audit should examine:

• attendance records;
• overtime;
• discrepancies between recorded and actual working hours;
• consecutive working days;
• rest periods;
• workload;
• managerial instructions; and
• action taken where excessive work is identified.

This is particularly important because Japanese case law recognises that excessive fatigue and psychological burden can engage an employer's duty of care.

In the Dentsu case, the Supreme Court held that an employer has a duty of care to ensure that employees' mental and physical health is not harmed by excessive accumulation of exhaustion and mental stress arising from work.

An internal audit should therefore compare actual working conditions with recorded working hours, rather than relying solely on payroll records.

7. Accident and Near-Miss Investigation

A good audit examines whether the employer:

1. reports accidents promptly;
2. investigates their causes;
3. identifies underlying causes;
4. implements corrective measures;
5. checks whether corrective measures worked; and
6. shares lessons with relevant workers.

The audit should also examine near-misses, because they can identify hazards before an actual injury occurs.

8. Emergency Preparedness

The audit should examine whether the organisation has effective procedures for:

• fire;
• chemical leakage;
• serious injury;
• evacuation;
• earthquakes;
• machinery accidents;
• medical emergencies; and
• other foreseeable emergencies.

Auditors should verify whether emergency procedures are actually tested through drills.

9. Corrective and Preventive Action

An audit is incomplete if it merely produces a list of problems.

Every significant finding should normally identify:

Finding → Cause → Corrective action → Responsible person → Deadline → Verification

For example:

Finding: Workers are not consistently using required respiratory protection.
Cause: PPE is uncomfortable and supervisors do not monitor usage.
Corrective action: Review PPE suitability, retrain workers and introduce supervisory checks.
Verification: Conduct a follow-up audit after implementation.

10. Internal Audit Process

A typical audit can follow these stages:

Stage 1 — Audit planning

Determine:

• scope;
• departments;
• workplaces;
• applicable laws;
• audit criteria;
• audit team; and
• timetable.

Stage 2 — Document review

Examine:

• policies;
• risk assessments;
• accident records;
• training records;
• inspection reports;
• health records where lawfully accessible;
• working-time data; and
• previous audit reports.

Stage 3 — Workplace inspection

Auditors physically inspect the workplace.

They should compare:

written procedure vs actual practice.

Stage 4 — Interviews

Workers, supervisors, safety personnel and managers may be interviewed.

Stage 5 — Evidence collection

Evidence can include:

• photographs;
• inspection records;
• training attendance;
• machine-maintenance records;
• incident reports; and
• interview notes.

Stage 6 — Findings

Findings can be classified according to organisational criteria, for example:

• major non-compliance;
• minor non-compliance;
• observation;
• improvement opportunity.

Stage 7 — Corrective action

Management should assign responsibility and deadlines.

Stage 8 — Follow-up

Auditors verify whether corrective actions have actually been implemented.

11. Importance of Internal Audits

Internal audits help organisations to:

• reduce workplace accidents;
• identify hidden hazards;
• improve legal compliance;
• improve safety culture;
• protect workers;
• reduce operational disruption;
• identify weaknesses in management systems;
• improve emergency preparedness;
• prevent recurrence of accidents; and
• demonstrate that management is actively monitoring workplace safety.

The importance of preventive systems is illustrated particularly strongly by Japanese asbestos litigation. The Supreme Court has held that regulatory and preventive measures concerning asbestos exposure were significant to protecting workers from serious occupational diseases.

12. Important Japanese Case Laws

1. Dentsu Case — Supreme Court, 24 March 2000

1998 (O) Nos. 217 and 218, Minshu Vol. 54 No. 3, p. 1155

This is a leading Japanese decision concerning an employer's duty of care for an employee subjected to excessive work.

The Supreme Court recognised that an employer has a duty to protect an employee's physical and mental health from excessive fatigue and psychological stress associated with work. The Court also considered the employer's knowledge of excessive overtime and deterioration in the employee's health.

Audit significance:
Internal audits should examine overtime, workload, fatigue indicators and whether managers take action when employees show signs of excessive burden.

2. Asbestos Factory Case — Supreme Court, 9 October 2014

2014 (Ju) No. 771

The Supreme Court considered the failure of the Minister of Labour to exercise regulatory authority concerning asbestos exposure. The Court addressed the Industrial Safety and Health Act's requirements concerning prevention of health impairment and workplace safety.

Audit significance:
Organisations handling hazardous substances must periodically verify whether their controls remain consistent with current scientific and regulatory knowledge.

3. Asbestos Construction-Site Case — Supreme Court, 17 May 2021

2018 (Ju) No. 1447

The Supreme Court considered asbestos exposure among workers engaged in indoor construction work and the State's regulatory responsibilities under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

The judgment discussed measures including ventilation, respiratory protection, warnings and prevention of health impairment.

Audit significance:
Health and safety audits should examine not only whether PPE exists but whether exposure controls, warnings, ventilation and actual use are effective.

4. Mitsubishi Motors Hub Accident — Supreme Court, 8 February 2012

2009 (A) No. 359

The Supreme Court considered an accident involving a truck wheel hub and examined the responsibilities of personnel in the company's quality-assurance function. The Court found that, given the available accident information and foreseeable risks, responsible personnel had duties to investigate and implement measures such as recalls.

Audit significance:
Although this was not a conventional workplace-health case, it illustrates an important audit principle: known safety information must be investigated and acted upon. Internal audit systems should therefore test whether management responds appropriately to safety warnings, incidents and recurring defects.

5. Police Inspector Mental-Health Case — Supreme Court, 7 March 2025

2023 (Ju) No. 927

The Supreme Court considered whether a prefecture was liable where a police inspector developed a mental disorder and committed suicide following substantial work burdens.

The Court reiterated that an employer has a duty of care to prevent physical and mental-health impairment caused by excessive fatigue and psychological burden. It considered factors including overtime, consecutive working days, additional work, stress-test information and the absence of concrete measures to reduce the burden.

Audit significance:
A health-and-safety audit should examine workload, overtime, consecutive working days, stress information and whether managers actually intervene when excessive burden becomes apparent.

6. Asbestos Construction-Work Regulatory Case — Supreme Court, 27 April 2004

The Supreme Court addressed regulatory measures relating to asbestos exposure and the obligations arising under Japan's occupational-safety framework. The case is relevant to the development of Japanese legal principles concerning asbestos-related workplace health protection.

Audit significance:
Health-and-safety systems should be reviewed periodically because acceptable controls may change as scientific knowledge and regulatory standards develop.

13. Relationship Between Case Law and Internal Audit

These cases collectively demonstrate several important audit principles:

14. Conclusion

Internal audits of health and safety systems in Japan should be understood as a preventive management mechanism, not simply as an administrative compliance exercise. A proper audit examines whether legal requirements and internal policies are actually functioning in the workplace.

Particular attention should be given to risk assessment, machinery safety, hazardous substances, PPE, training, health examinations, working hours, fatigue, mental health, accident investigation, emergency preparedness and corrective actions.

Japanese Supreme Court decisions—including the Dentsu, asbestos, Mitsubishi Motors, and 2025 police inspector cases—show the importance of identifying foreseeable risks, monitoring employees' physical and mental health, responding to known hazards and taking concrete preventive measures.

Thus, an effective internal health and safety audit should ultimately answer one central question: Are the organisation's safety systems genuinely preventing foreseeable harm, or do they merely exist on paper?