Helen Roush, Executive Vice President of Paperitalo Publications

The tragedy at Nippon Dynawave Packaging in Longview, Washington, on May 26, 2026 serves as a sobering reminder that the pulp and paper industry is hazardous, even in an era of advancing technology and heightened awareness.

Over the last decade, industry safety statistics have shown only modest improvement... in some areas. Many mills have enjoyed long stretches without major incidents, only to suffer devastating events when least expected. This pattern raises a troubling question: why do Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs) continue? (1)

Today, mills deploy powerful tools such as AI, IoT sensors, and digital twins for real-time equipment monitoring. Yet even with these advanced tools, tragic outcomes and SIFs continue to occur. This persistent gap highlights a deeper issue: while technology has advanced, many mills remain overly focused on OSHA's required injury tracking, particularly the Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), as their main measure of safety performance. (2)

Because here lies the paradox: recent studies, including insights from the Pulp & Paper Safety Association, show little to no correlation between low TRIR numbers and reduced SIF rates. A facility can maintain an excellent (or even zero) recordable rate while still experiencing SIFs.

So, what's really going on?

The answer lies in how the industry measures and manages safety. Far too many mills still treat a low or zero TRIR as the ultimate mark of safety excellence. This narrow focus comes at a steep cost: damaging morale and encouraging under-reporting. Facilities "manage" injuries to protect their numbers, which leads to murky interpretations and a culture where minor issues are hidden rather than addressed.

To illustrate how misleading TRIR can be, consider three mill examples with dramatically different rates. At first glance, one might assume the lowest TRIR represents the safest operation, but read on to find out what's under the numbers:

• Site A (TRIR 3.29): Strong Human and Organizational Performance leadership with proactive early intervention, including on-site athletic trainers, robust engineering controls, and strong ergonomics programs. Minor recordables are viewed as valuable signals and opportunities to prevent more serious events. These transparent, proactive efforts drive the TRIR higher.

• Site B (TRIR 0.00): Intense pressure to achieve zero recordables, reinforced by incentives and management involvement in recordability decisions. This leads to under-reporting, weak root-cause investigations, and limited organizational learning. The result? A later SIF.

• Site C (TRIR 0.87): A punitive culture that suppresses open reporting. While recordables stay low, the few incidents that occurred were serious, and responses focused on blame rather than systemic improvement.

Site A succeeded precisely because it focused on reducing SIFs. Its leadership invested in strong systems, treated small problems as early warnings, and built a culture of openness and learning.

In contrast, Sites B and C, despite their impressive-looking TRIR numbers, missed critical early warnings because they lacked honest reporting, thorough investigation, and a genuine learning culture. Their obsession with better metrics created dangerous complacency and conditions.

The lesson is clear: TRIR does not tell the full story.

A lack of reported incidents does not equal safety. (3)

Rather than rewarding or grading performance based on self-reported failures (the OSHA-mandated recordables), supervisors and management at every level should prioritize indicators such as system robustness, early identification of warning signs (of every kind), and proactive hazard controls.

Leaders and safety professionals must prioritize genuine risk reduction: resilient systems and Human and Organizational Performance principles over the pursuit of zero recordables. (4) This cultural shift is essential to achieve lasting progress toward reducing serious injuries and fatalities.

Stay safe.