When an EHS or safety team identifies a tool that could materially reduce risk, there’s still one unavoidable step before rollout: IT review.
That review isn’t a blocker. It’s a risk filter. IT teams are responsible for protecting data, maintaining operational integrity and ensuring new software does not introduce security, compliance or support burdens elsewhere in the organisation.
Understanding what IT will ask, and answering it up front, is often the difference between a fast deployment and months of delay.
Where does the data live?
This is almost always the first question.
IT managers will want to know whether the system is cloud-based, on-premise or hybrid and, if cloud-based, where data is physically hosted. For organisations operating across regions, this is both a legal and operational concern.
European deployments must comply with GDPR and national data protection laws. UK operations are governed separately under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. In other regions, particularly the Middle East, data residency and sovereignty requirements are increasingly explicit.
A credible safety platform must support compliant regional hosting and clearly define how data is stored, processed and retained, without forcing organisations into complex infrastructure decisions.
How much IT involvement is required?
This question is often more important than integration.
Many modern safety platforms do not require deep connections into HR, payroll or operational systems to deliver value. From an IT perspective, the lowest-risk option is a system that operates securely out of the box, without touching existing infrastructure.
IT teams will look for confirmation that the platform can function as a standalone service, with integrations treated as optional rather than mandatory. Where integration is required, it should be handled through standard interfaces rather than bespoke development.
Fewer touchpoints mean fewer failure modes, lower maintenance overhead and faster approval. In practice, minimal integration is not a limitation. It’s a deliberate design choice.
How is security handled?
Security is assessed as a baseline, not a differentiator.
IT managers will expect encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access controls, audit logging and secure authentication. They’ll also look for clear processes around vulnerability management and incident response.
Alignment with recognised frameworks such as ISO 27001 is increasingly used as a reference point, even where formal certification is not contractually required. The key question is whether security is built into the platform by default rather than configured after deployment.
Where safety tools capture sensitive information, such as images, video or health-related data, scrutiny increases further. IT will expect clarity on access control, retention periods and secure deletion.
How are privacy and employee data protected?
Privacy is no longer just a legal concern. It’s an operational one.
IT teams will assess whether personal data is minimised, whether access is tightly controlled and whether processing is transparent to both the organisation and the individual. This is particularly important in workplace safety contexts, where employee trust is critical.
A robust platform should support lawful processing across jurisdictions, clear information for employees and auditable controls that align with GDPR principles and equivalent regulations elsewhere.
How is AI governed?
As safety software increasingly incorporates AI, IT teams pay close attention to how it’s used.
They will look for assurance that automated assessments are explainable, traceable and subject to human oversight. This is becoming a regulatory expectation under emerging frameworks such as the EU AI Act, particularly where AI influences safety decisions or risk classification.
The practical question IT asks is straightforward: can advanced functionality be deployed without introducing unmanaged regulatory risk?
What evidence does the system produce?
In safety and compliance, outcomes matter. Evidence matters more.
IT teams will assess whether the platform produces structured, time-stamped records that can be audited, exported and relied upon by regulators, insurers or internal audit teams. Digital systems increasingly replace paper and spreadsheets, but only if the records they generate are defensible.
How much ongoing support does IT carry?
Finally, IT will consider the downstream impact.
If users struggle, IT often becomes the default helpdesk. Platforms that are genuinely self-service, require minimal configuration and are supported directly by the vendor significantly reduce that burden.
From an IT perspective, a system that stays out of the way after approval is often the best outcome.
Bringing IT into the conversation early
The fastest deployments happen when EHS and IT are aligned from the start.
Teams that arrive with clear answers on data, security, privacy and regulatory alignment demonstrate that the platform has been evaluated as an enterprise system, not a departmental experiment. That credibility shortens approval cycles and builds trust across the organisation.
EHA teams that move quickest are not those that bypass IT. They are the ones that respect IT’s role and choose tools designed to fit cleanly into existing environments, without disruption.
