One of the most powerful psychologies determining the fate of occupational health and safety practices in Türkiye is auditing. As audits approach, businesses become active, deficiencies are identified, files are organized, training signatures are completed, instructions are posted, and some equipment is quickly arranged. When the audit day arrives, the organization often feels "ready." Because the requested documents exist, files are in place, and signs are installed. When the audit passes without problems, a natural relief is experienced: "So the system is working."

However, the reality seen countless times in the field is this: Passing an audit without issues does not mean the system is working. Passing an audit cleanly often shows that the organization's "audit preparation" reflex has been successful. This reflex produces one of the most critical failures of OHS in Türkiye: The purpose of OHS is not to reduce risks, but to avoid problems. When a business operates with this psychology, the system does not truly mature; only the appearance improves. Yet the test of OHS is not the audit day, but the ordinary days after the audit.

This article analyzes how the audit-focused OHS approach in Türkiye produces a "false success criterion," why auditing and the system are not the same thing, and which indicators should be used to measure a real OHS system.

Auditing is a control mechanism that must be carried out according to regulations. It is valuable in this respect. It aims to see whether businesses have at least fulfilled their basic obligations. However, in Türkiye's practice, auditing is often perceived with a "minimum compliance" mentality. This question forms in the business's mind: "Let's complete whatever they want." This approach produces a reflex that reads regulations not to build a system, but to avoid penalties.

The difference between building an OHS system and not having problems in an audit emerges in continuity. An audit is one day. A system is every day. An audit is a photograph. A system flows like a film. A structure that looks good in a photograph but falls apart in the film is actually not a system. Many businesses in Türkiye appear organized in audits but fragile in the field. Because "audit preparation" and "risk management" are thought to be the same thing.

The most common reason for not having problems in an audit is ensuring document integrity. There is a risk assessment, there is an emergency plan, there are training records, there are drill reports, there are committee minutes. All of these documents are necessary from a regulatory perspective.

But the reality in the field is this: The existence of a document does not mean the risk has decreased. A risk assessment may have been done, but what percentage of the actions in the risk assessment have been closed? Training may have been given, but has inappropriate behavior decreased in the field? A drill may have been conducted, but has a reflex been formed in a crisis? Audits often cannot adequately measure these "outcome" questions. Because the duration, scale, and method of the audit usually are not sufficient for this. In Türkiye, when an OHS professional passes an audit cleanly, they are considered "successful." Management relaxes. This relaxation actually prevents seeing the weakness of the system.

A very common example in the field explains this clearly. As the audit approaches, some arrangements are quickly made at the workplace. Guards are installed, warning signs are renewed, some deficiencies are addressed. The audit ends. Then production pressure returns. That guard is removed again because it "slows down work." The sign falls and is not reinstalled because "now is not the time." The subcontractor enters without control again because "the work must be completed."

This cycle shows that there is no system. Because in a system there is audit-independent discipline, not post-audit relaxation. A real system aims not to pass audits cleanly; but to close actions even without an audit, to reduce recurrences, to decrease work accidents, and to make risk discipline permanent. Relaxing after passing an audit is one of the most dangerous failures in Türkiye.

The most important concept that reveals the difference between auditing and a system is the follow-up mechanism. The weakest area of OHS in Türkiye is "closure." A nonconformity is identified, reported, written. However, there is a great weakness in closure discipline. The same nonconformities appear in reports again and again. These recurrences are a clear indicator that the system is not working.

The real measure of the system is this: Are recurring nonconformities decreasing? Are actions closing on the planned time? Are responsibilities clear? Do delays come before management? On audit day, these recurrences may not be seen or may not be fully analyzed. Yet the system manages this data independently of audits.

This distinction is also critically important in terms of labor law. In Türkiye, in the process following a work accident, the sentence "we passed the audit" often does not protect the business. Because the actual situation at the time of the incident is evaluated. Was the risk known? Was an action given? Was it followed up? Was it recurring?

Just because there were no problems in the audit does not eliminate the organization's responsibility. In fact, in some cases appearing problem-free in an audit more clearly shows that the organization is "strong in documents, weak in the field." Because if the system were working, the risk would have already decreased. The difference of good businesses in Türkiye is removing auditing as a target. They see auditing as a result.

Passing an audit without issues is certainly positive for an organization. However, this alone does not show that the OHS system is working. In Türkiye's practice, the audit-focused OHS approach produces "apparent compliance"; whereas the real goal is "field control." The system shows itself not on audit day, but on ordinary days. If actions are closing, if recurrences are decreasing, if behavior is changing, and if management has established a follow-up mechanism, there is a system.

The EGEROBOT ISG-SIS® approach is designed to clarify this distinction. The goal is not to prepare audit files; it is to establish a control system that works independently of audits. Linking risks to actions, matching actions with responsible parties, making delays visible, monitoring recurring nonconformities as trends, and management making decisions based on this data; these are the real indicators of the system.

When such a structure is established, auditing stops being "a day to prepare for" and becomes the natural output of "a system that is already working." EGEROBOT ISG-SIS® provides real OHS management by offering software, methodology, and consulting support together to businesses that want to build this transformation.