The quality gap in Noise at Work Assessments: Why higher standards matter

Noise-induced hearing loss remains one of the most preventable occupational health issues in UK workplaces. However, Steel's (2026) review of noise survey reports for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that many consultancy reports contained significant shortcomings, raising concerns that organisations may not be receiving the quality of assessment required to effectively manage noise risks.

In many cases, the reports fall short of the standard needed to effectively support compliance with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 and may therefore fail to provide meaningful protection for workers.

This article provides an overview of key findings in HSE’s research, exploring the fundamental quality gap in many assessments and what a first-rate assessment should include.

The reality: Many third-party noise assessments aren’t up to standard

The HSE’s recent research reviewed a large sample of third‑party noise at work assessment reports and found that:

• According to Steel (2026), 59% of reports were unsatisfactory or worse in helping a duty holder comply with noise regulations, with only 41% meeting a usable standard.
• The review also raised questions about consultant competence and transparency. For example, 37% of consultants failed to provide their qualifications in the report, making it difficult for employers to verify competence.
• Reports lacking professional membership details were significantly more likely to be rated “unsatisfactory”.

This aligns closely with the concerns raised in the UK Hearing Conservation Association’s (UKHCA) buyer’s guide, which emphasises the need for transparent qualifications, professional membership, and demonstrable competence.

What makes an assessment inadequate?

HSE’s research highlighted several technical shortcomings commonly seen in inadequate assessments:

1. Weak measurement methodology: Many poor‑quality reports showed incorrect or unclear measurement positions, little to no reference of recognised measurement standards, and poor description of measurement durations. These issues undermine the reliability of exposure calculations (e.g., LEP,d), which the HSE emphasises as essential for compliance.

2. Poor control recommendations: Many reports failed to provide prioritised noise‑control options, evidence‑based, reasonably practicable recommendations, and clear advice on maintenance, training, or health surveillance. This is notable, because HSE guidance stresses that a noise assessment must provide actionable, prioritised information – not just numbers.

3. Incorrect or missing hearing protection advice: The review found widespread problems, including incorrect selection or performance calculations, lack of guidance on fit and wear, and inconsistency around over‑protection and audibility.

Adequate vs first‑rate: The standard matters

The HSE’s own guidance makes a clear distinction between Adequate (minimum legal requirement), more than adequate, and first‑rate (showing high competence and experience). Many noise at work assessments sit only at the ’adequate’ end, and in lots of cases, do not even meet these criteria. A ’first‑rate’ noise at work assessment, on the other hand, includes:

• Identification of at‑risk employees
• Accurate exposure calculations
• Clear linkage between tasks and measurements
• Practical, prioritised noise-control options
• Transparent methodology and competence
• Clear guidance on health surveillance, training, and hearing protection

Collectively, these elements provide employers with the information needed to prioritise controls, allocate resources effectively, and demonstrate compliance.

This difference between adequate and first-rate assessment directly affects an employer’s ability to act, improve safety, and stay compliant. This matters more than ever, as HSE's 2026–2027 work plan includes inspections in the food and drink, waste and recycling, and rubber and plastics sectors (Steel, 2026, slide 47). With enforcement increasing, many organisations will soon find that a ‘tick-box’ noise assessment simply isn’t enough.

Delivering more than minimum

At SLR, we strive to deliver noise at work assessments that align with the characteristics HSE and UKHCA associate with ‘more than adequate’ and ‘first-rate’ practice.

For clients, this means noise at work assessments that offer:

• Clarity over complexity: Clear exposure values linked directly to real-world tasks and processes.
• Traceable, transparent methodology: Measurement standards referenced, equipment listed, and rationale explained.
• Actionable control measures: Prioritised recommendations based on what is reasonably practicable - not generic statements.
• Accurate and evidence-based hearing protection advice: Including performance calculations, practical guidance on fit and wear, and checks for audibility.
• Explicit competence and credentials: Something too often missing in the industry.

This approach is not about producing thicker reports; it’s about producing useful reports. Because noise at work assessments is not an administrative exercise, they’re the starting point for reducing risk and preventing life-changing harm.

References:

1. Steel, C. (2026). Workplace noise surveys: A review of current practice. Acoustics Bulletin, 52(2), 49–52.
2. Engineering Industry Noise Task Group. (n.d.). Noise assessments – Getting what you need [Information sheet]. Health and Safety Executive. http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/who.htm
3. Steel, C. (2026, January 20). The quality of acoustic consultancy reports [Presentation slides]. Institute of Acoustics Scottish Branch. https://www.ioa.org.uk/events/scottish-branch-the-quality-of-acoustic-consultancy-reports