By: Arjen de Bruin - Group CEO at OIM Consulting

South Africa’s mines are still seeing injuries and fatalities for one dominant reason: human behaviour under pressure. OIM’s latest analysis, drawn from more than a decade of on-site data, shows that close to 80% of incidents come from human actions, while only 3% stem from unsafe conditions. That means most accidents occur even when equipment is sound and safety procedures are in place. They happen when stress, time pressure and split-second decisions override the rules.

For years, while the mining sector has been diligent about safety, it has historically been seen by some as more of a box-ticking or compliance exercise. Procedures have been updated and equipment has improved, yet incident rates remain because the focus has – in many instances – sat in the wrong place.

The real issue is behaviour under pressure. OIM’s SafetyDNA data makes that plain, by measuring how consistently workers apply safe habits during real operational demands. The scale runs from one to ten and reflects the strength of behaviour, not knowledge. Rule-following averages 7.74, which shows that crews understand what is required. But two indicators expose the real risk: risk aversion sits at 3.79, and emotional control at 5.26. These figures show that the moment a shift falls behind schedule or the plan changes without warning, people start cutting corners to regain momentum – and that is when accidents occur.

What really happens when pressure hits underground

Interviews across sites tell the same story. Workers know the rules, but they carry too much, and supervisors juggle admin, production pressure and constant interruptions. When a delay hits or something breaks, that pressure lands on the crew, and people move faster to keep the shift on track instead of sticking to the safest method. That’s how the paperwork ends up looking perfect while the work itself turns risky. So, safety paperwork complete – but the hazard is still present.

In one operation, for example, we saw one technician use the same shortcut repeatedly without consequence, and over time he began to treat it as normal. Once a shortcut works a few times, people start becoming reliant on it, and no amount of documentation pulls them back.

Frontline supervisors influence safety more than any system on site. Teamwork sits at 75%, which shows crews work well together. But receptiveness drops to 54% – a clear sign that many workers stop taking in guidance when they feel pressure. When instructions shift or conditions change, people push ahead with whatever feels familiar rather than adjusting to the safer option. Psychological fitness at 58% reinforces the point: workers manage a normal day, but once pressure rises, their ability to absorb information and make steady decisions thins out. That is when incidents happen.

Why supervisors hold the line

Supervisors sit at the centre of this. Crews take their cues directly from the person leading them. When a supervisor explains the next step clearly and sets a workable pace, teams follow the safer path even when the shift goes off track. When a supervisor reacts sharply or rushes to recover time, the crew closes up as well. We see the difference in the numbers: coached supervisors record fewer incidents because their teams still listen, still raise concerns and still adapt safely when the plan breaks down.

The path forward is clear. Mines need to move from “safety as a system requirement” to “safety as a personal standard”, where workers understand why rules matter, where people speak up without fear, where supervisors lead rather than enforce, and where behaviour is shaped through daily reinforcement.

South Africa’s mines have come a long way in system compliance. The next frontier is behavioural capability. If we tackle that gap with the same intensity applied to engineering controls and documentation, the industry can make real progress, with fewer incidents and stronger crews.

The data is telling us exactly where the real risk lies. Now the industry needs to act.