A total of 893 applications from organisations across the world were received for the British Safety Council’s International Safety Awards (ISA) in 2026.
A Distinction, Merit or Pass was achieved by 95% of applicants. The distribution of grades among the applications submitted in 2026 was as follows:
Distinction: 230 (26%)
Merit: 428 (48%)
Pass: 193 (22%)
Fail: 34 (4%)
General comments
Organisations were provided with online ‘easy-to-access’ aides to assist them in the preparation and submission of their award applications.
These included:
- the 2026 International Safety Awards question set and marking scheme - https://www.britsafe.org/media/wswnnvvd/isa-2026-question-set-and-criteria.pdf
- the Chief Adjudicator’s Report for the 2025 International Safety Awards
- frequently asked questions and a guidance note concerning the eligibility requirements – see https://www.britsafe.org/awards-and-events/awards/international-safety-awards/questions-and-marking-scheme/frequently-asked-questions
- the list of 2025 ISA winners; and,
- details of webinars for potential applicants hosted by the British Safety Council in October 2025 and January 2026.
The webinars hosted by the British Safety Council, the Chief Adjudicator and the award scheme’s Independent Adjudicator were well attended. The purpose of the webinars was to assist applicants by addressing their queries and helping their understanding of how best to provide the evidence necessary to achieve high marks. We recommend that any organisation considering applying for ISA 2027, whether a previous applicant or first-time applicant, attends one of our webinars.
The importance of applicants accessing and understanding the ISA eligibility requirements as set out in the regulations, guidance and advice listed above cannot be overstated. Applicants must confirm the accuracy and veracity of the answers they provide.
We asked applicants to provide details of any accidents, incidents or occurrences that had taken place at their site in 2024 and 2025 and details of any regulatory sanctions that were imposed. This information is vital to the adjudication process and has a bearing on how adjudicators judged the effectiveness of the applicant organisation in ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of its workforce in 2024 and 2025. Had enforcement action been taken in the relevant eligibility period it was for the adjudicators to decide whether any resulting remedial action was sufficient before allowing the application to proceed to adjudication.
A key factor in ISA success, therefore, is for applicant organisations to follow the regulations, guidance and advice.
This report sets out examples of the information provided by applicants which achieved high scores in the ten marked questions.
It is essential to success for applicants to read and absorb the questions. Low scores in many cases resulted from an incomplete reading or misunderstanding of what was being sought. Where a question asks, for example, for ONE or THREE actions, practices or procedures, applicants should only provide ONE or THREE. By providing more than asked for in the question applicants were negatively impacting on their potential score.
We advise applicants to make full use of the 600 word limit but not to exceed it. Answers to scored questions must be textual. We do not require applicants to provide supplementary evidence in the form of documents, photographs, data or other information. Adjudicators based their score on the quality of the evidence outlined in the content of the textual answers. Applicants who gave too short answers inevitably failed to include the evidence necessary to score more than one mark.
It is important that applicants think very carefully before drafting their answer to each and every question about: ‘what we have done, why we have done this, how we have done this and what has been the effect of what we have done to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of the workforce at our site'. High scoring answers consistently addressed the impact of the measures put in place to prevent injury and ill health and ensure wellbeing.
Presentation is all important. Applicants who provided long lists of arrangements in place or actions taken without explanation of ‘how, why and to what effect’ were marked down. The use of informative headings, sub-headings and paragraphs were also important in helping adjudicators gauge how well the applicant had done in addressing the core elements of the question.
Supplementary marks continued to be awarded to applicants who have successfully been certified by British Safety Council under the Five Star Audit scheme or to ISO 45001 in the relevant qualifying period.
In our ISA webinars we advised applicants to draft answers in a separate word document before transferring to the online application. It is essential that all answers ar e proof-read and ideally peer reviewed by a colleague before the application is submitted. The time taken to do so is time well spent as it can result in the extra marks that make the difference, for example, between a Pass and a Merit or a Merit and a Distinction.
BSC, the Chief Adjudicator and the Independent Adjudicator were aware that in a small number of applications AI had been used to generate answers. In other low scoring applications, it was apparent that applicants had cut and pasted text from health and safety management and wellbeing textbooks. This resulted in formulaic, theoretical answers that provided the adjudicators with little sense of how health, safety and wellbeing was being managed effectively at the applicant’s site. AI generated or textbook answers will continue to be marked down as ISA goes forward.
We received multiple applications for different sites and business units within one organisation. That is acceptable and welcomed. There will be instances where identical text will be used when answering specific questions, for example, regarding management systems, audit arrangements and training and development activities for those sites and business units. This is permissible for such questions but as often as possible all the evidence and examples provided should be site specific.
The application of practical real-life examples from the workplace are important and a key requirement in all ten of the ISA 2026 questions. We cannot over-stress the importance of providing comprehensive answers to questions 1 and 2 – these are contextual non-scoring questions. The adjudicators want to understand how things operate in practice in specific sites or workplaces. This approach brings applications to life and helps improve the adjudicator’s understanding of the effectiveness of the measures in place.
Wellbeing has moved up corporate and business agendas. Successful applications provided comprehensive and persuasive evidence of the actions taken by the organisation to ensure the health and wellbeing of their workforce and the wider community impacted by their activities. For ISA 2026 we introduced a new question concerning how psychosocial risks are being identified, addressed and monitored in the workplace.
Some applicants when addressing the wellbeing questions outlined details of the measures taken at their site to prevent injury and ill health, neglecting to provide evidence of the initiatives and measures they had in place to improve and protect the quality of workers’ lives more generally.
The adjudicators hope that the information provided in this report helps you in preparing for the International Safety Awards 2027 but equally importantly in providing information that helps you to continue to meet the challenges you and your colleagues face in preventing injuries and ill health occurrences and ensuring wellbeing in your workplace.
The question set for ISA 2026 will be comprehensively reviewed in preparation for ISA 2027. The questions will be relevant, topical and most importantly address the significant challenges you are having to manage every day in your workplaces.
We wish you every success in 2027.