Prevention, power of control and IA. The investment that qualifies the enterprise

While the legislative path to modernise the rules on remote control for security purposes suffers a setback, the world of research and the most virtuous companies chart the course for a safer future. The recent withdrawal in the Senate's Constitutional Affairs Committee of the amendment to Article 4 of the Workers' Statute, contained in the Simplification Bill, represents a missed opportunity to bring the legislation in line with technological progress. The proposal aimed to exclude 'tools, equipment and devices functional to ensure or improve the protection of health and safety at work' from the complex authorisation process, effectively equating video cameras with Artificial Intelligence (AI) software and intelligent PPE with normal work tools. The result is a regulatory framework that holds back the adoption of advanced technologies for occupational risk prevention.

A regulatory short-circuit. The dilemma of art. 4 l. 300/1970

The problem lies in the difficult interpretation of Article 4 of the Workers' Statute in the face of the advent of AI applied to security. The question is whether the new digital tools should be considered 'control tools' or 'work tools', a classification that radically changes the process for their adoption in companies. As a report by the International Labour Organisation also points out, AI offers significant opportunities for prevention, through video cameras that detect the non-use of PPE, drones to inspect hazardous locations and predictive algorithms that anticipate machinery failures.

However, the first paragraph of Article 4 requires a prior collective agreement with the trade unions (or, failing that, an authorisation from the labour inspectorate) for the installation of any instrument from which 'the possibility of remote control also derives'. The second paragraph, however, exempts from this procedure the 'instruments used by the worker to perform the work'. This is where the ambiguity arises: is a protective helmet equipped with sensors signalling a danger a 'control instrument' (subject to the agreement of paragraph 1) or a 'work instrument' (exempt according to paragraph 2)? The prevailing interpretation, aimed at avoiding abuse, is restrictive: a tool is only a 'working tool' if it is strictly necessary and functional for the task. Software that analyses images to verify the use of a helmet, responding to a safety requirement, thus runs the risk of falling under the more stringent paragraph 1, slowing down its introduction at production unit level.

The business response. Prevention as a strategic asset