Extreme heat impairing worker safety, morale and productivity, academic warns
“Employers need to get ahead of [the heat] because it’s not going to change. Even if employers don’t think it’s affecting them now, it’s going to affect them in the next 10 or 15 years,” says Eva Glosson, adjunct professor at Olympic College in Washington.
From heatwaves in traditionally temperate regions to the intensifying burden on industries reliant on manual labour, the demands on employers are escalating. August 2024 became the hottest August ever recorded, marking the end of the warmest summer on Earth since global temperature tracking began in 1880, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
But the issue isn’t confined to sites and crop fields.
“Heat is an extreme risk and hazard for workers,” she explains. “It’s not really well understood that it's difficult for indoor workers as well as outdoor workers as well.”
While much of the regulatory focus has remained fixated on agriculture and construction, Glosson is increasingly concerned about overlooked sectors like warehouses, restaurants and laundromats where traditional HVAC systems can’t handle the demand.
“They're just struggling to be able to provide adequate cooling temperatures for the equipment that’s inside, or the size of the environment,” she says.
When heat erodes judgment, workplaces suffer
The real-world consequences of heat exposure go far beyond discomfort. Glosson notes that heat stress can impair more than just the body – it affects the mind. Decision-making, attention and reaction time all degrade. And then there’s the psychological toll.
“From multiple pieces of research, we know that cognitively a person is negatively affected from heat,” she says. “From a safety and health standpoint, you’re less likely to be able to safely interact with your environment.”
“We know that heat can contribute to signs of like violence as well,” she says. “So, you're also going to have more irritable workers.”
That tension, Glosson adds, is exacerbated by complex power dynamics that often prevent workers, especially in low-wage roles, from advocating for safer conditions.
For HR leaders and employers, the implications go beyond compliance – they cut to the heart of workplace culture and reputation.
“If you are letting someone work in an environment where they are making mistakes, where they are becoming irritable, then production is going to be low, and your attrition rate is going to be high,” she says.
Employees who feel dismissed or unsafe are more likely to engage in what she calls “counterproductive work behaviours”— the slow erosion of discipline and goodwill.
“You might have employees who start taking advantage of ‘If I can take up to 45 minutes [for lunch], I am taking a 45-minute break,’” she says. “It is a huge sign of a problem that needs to be addressed.”
Policies for heat safety
Despite the risks, current protections are lagging, Glosson says. Bill 36, the Heat Stress Act, was proposed in May for Ontario but has not yet been implemented. The act requires the Minister to develop and implement a Worker Heat Protection Standard, sets out requirements for that standard and requires every employer to ensure there is heat stress training for employees.
But rather than wait for legislation, she urges businesses to pay attention to what their workers are already doing, meaning signals, unofficial workarounds pointing to systemic gaps.
“Heat regulations are absolutely behind the times, and employers need to do much better,” Glosson says. “Are workers doing things on their own that employers need to adopt as part of policies?” she asks. “Are employees bringing in extra coolers full of frozen Gatorades... bringing in their own frozen gel pack neck band?”
Why minimum standards aren’t enough in warming world
When it comes to policy, Glosson draws a clear line between regulations and responsibility. In her view, relying solely on existing rules, many of which she describes as outdated or bare minimum, isn’t enough to ensure worker safety, particularly as extreme heat intensifies.
“There are regulations, and then there's best practices; an employer should always strive to do best practices,” she says. “You can’t rely on regulations to keep your workplace working in its optimal best, because regulations are there to provide the bare minimum.”
Glosson urges employers to be proactive, not reactive, which starts with identifying “leading indicators” – the early signs that employees are adapting on their own due to unmet needs – and converting those into formal policies. She also points to legal frameworks that already support stronger actions.
“Workers have a right to a safe workplace,” she says. “That is a legal right, and understanding that heat stress falls under that is important.”
Solutions from leaders, employers
And the solution isn’t always complex.
“There’s so many no-nonsense things that you can do,” she says. “You don’t have to necessarily put in a state-of-the-art air conditioning unit — just slow down, zoom out and start talking to your workers.”
One powerful and underused tool, according to Glosson, is visible, empathetic leadership.
“Direct leadership can do things like walk the floor, say, 'It's hot, I understand it's hot. Let's figure out some way [to make it better].” she says. “The second half of that coin is taking action, especially when employees have specific things that they need.”
These could be as simple as misters, electrolyte drinks or cooling breaks. And making them happen requires effective communication across all levels of leadership.
“All of these little things make a huge difference,” Glosson says. “Communication, communication, communication.”
Workplace culture and heat safety
But enforcement isn’t just about regulations—it’s about creating a culture where supervisors are trained to recognize signs of heat stress and empowered to intervene. “They might want to just finish a task or work an extra 10 minutes… [but supervisors need] to be on the lookout and say, hey, why don't you take five, take 10, go sit in this cool area.” Policies aren’t effective unless they’re actionable—and enforced where it matters most: on the floor.
Ultimately, Glosson suggests, this isn’t just a policy challenge but a cultural one.
“Does an employer, at its core, want the reputation of being the bare minimum?” she asks. It’s a provocation, but a pointed one. Because if employers want to be known for more – for innovation, retention and care – they’ll need to face the heat head-on, she says.
