When discussing occupational health and safety practices in Türkiye, the same distortion ranks among the most common problems encountered in the field: OHS being understood as "document" rather than "system." This approach is a misconception that not only small businesses but also companies above a certain scale that think they are institutionalized fall into. Risk assessment is done, trainings are completed with signature, drills are conducted, committee meeting minutes are prepared, files are arranged. A sense of security is formed because the documents are in place. But when you go to the field, the risk is the same risk, the behavior is the same behavior.

The most dangerous thing this situation creates is this: As documents are completed, the business starts to think it's safe. However, the sense of security from OHS is measured not by the existence of documents but by the reduction of risk in the field. Accidents don't look at documents. If a table that looks proper on audit day is working with the same production pressure and the same habits for three months after the audit, it means the system is actually not working. Many occupational accidents in Türkiye are born exactly in this "documents are complete but system is weak" area.

This article analyzes why document-oriented execution of OHS has become widespread in Türkiye practice; how this drags the business into a risk structure; and what differences keep a real OHS system standing.

The document-oriented OHS approach is largely a behavior shaped by audit culture. Audits are often done within a certain period and focus on the documents required by regulations. This situation naturally pushes businesses to act with this reflex: "Let's present the documents requested at the audit completely." There's no problem up to here; documents are already necessary. The problem begins when documents become the goal. That is, when the business starts doing OHS not to manage it but to not have problems during audits, the part that affects the field gradually weakens.

The "just get by" culture in Türkiye has also directly reflected on OHS. In many businesses, the existence of risk is known, but due to production tempo and cost pressure, risks are postponed "for now." This postponement is often masked through documents. The risk assessment has been updated but the risk is the same in the field. Instructions are posted but there is no implementation. Training has been given but the way of working has not changed. This disconnect separates the document from reality.

In OHS, the document is actually a beginning. Risk assessment is not a list; it's the first step of the action mechanism. A training attendance form is not a goal; it's only the record side of behavior change. A drill report is not a result; it's the documentation of reflex development. If documents have no counterpart in the field, then the organization's most critical need — "control" — is missing.

This deficiency is most clearly visible in action management. In many businesses in Türkiye, non-conformities are correctly detected. The expert walks the field, takes photos, writes findings. OJHS reports are created. But the real problem starts here: actions don't close. Because they don't close, the same non-conformity recurs. Because it recurs, it becomes normalized. Because it becomes normalized, no one alarms "this is still continuing." This cycle is where OHS cannot go beyond documents.

In terms of labor law as well, this approach weakens the business. Because after an occupational accident, the process doesn't stop at the point of "is there a document or not." The question turns to this: "Was this risk known? Was the necessary precaution taken? Was action follow-up done? Were repetitions being monitored?" If the risk has been in reports for years but is not closing, the document doesn't protect the business; on the contrary, it shows that the business was aware of the risk and yet could not provide control. This also makes the duty of care questionable from a legal perspective.

Another consequence of the document-oriented approach is that corporate memory doesn't form. Documents are archived but data doesn't accumulate. The movement of risks over the years is not monitored. Questions like which non-conformities recur in which department, which actions are always delayed, which risks are becoming chronic cannot be answered. Because information remains locked within the document; it doesn't transform into a management mechanism. When corporate memory doesn't form, the business acts as if it's rediscovering the same risks every year. This also creates a picture that stagnates OHS rather than advancing it.

The OHS model outsourced in Türkiye produces more fragility at this point. Some businesses working with OJHS naturally think the process is managed by the expert. But the expert is not the business's decision-maker. They cannot change production organization, cannot make investment decisions, cannot force maintenance to be done. The expert tells the truth, reports, warns. But the system working is possible with the employer's ownership. If the employer doesn't take ownership, documents are produced but no results come out in the field. In this case, OHS actually turns into a "file management" activity.

For this reason, sustainable OHS in Türkiye requires control infrastructure as much as documents. Control infrastructure is a system that doesn't stop at detecting risk but shows who owns the action, sets a deadline, makes delay visible, and reports recurring non-conformities as trends. As long as this system doesn't exist, documents may be completed, but the safety culture doesn't strengthen.

Running OHS only on paper may seem to reduce audit pressure in the short term. However, the reality in the field shows this: Documents don't guarantee safety. What guarantees safety is control and continuity. Closure of actions, reduction of recurring risks, clarification of responsibility, and the organization producing its own memory... These are the real indicators of OHS.

The EGEROBOT ISG-SIS® approach is also shaped based on this need. The goal is not to produce documents; it's to make the field counterpart of the risk within the document manageable. Connecting risk findings to actions, tracking actions, making delays visible, monitoring repetitions, and keeping corporate memory within the organization is the foundation of sustainable OHS. When this structure is established, audit stops being just a photograph of one day; it becomes a natural result of the system already working.

The biggest need of OHS in Türkiye is to transition from the "files are complete" understanding to the "system is working" understanding. This transition happens not by buying software but by building the right control architecture. EGEROBOT ISG-SIS® is not just a tool for businesses that want to build this architecture, but also a methodology and transformation path.