Employee safety in 2026: Why the fire alarm isn’t enough, and why emergency protocols should include body armor.

For decades, “workplace safety” has been shorthand for the familiar: fire drills, first-aid kits, ergonomics, and a compliance binder that grows thicker each year.

None of that is wrong. It’s just incomplete.

As we move into 2026, many offices—especially those serving the public—are confronting a different category of risk: targeted threats and fast-moving incidents that don’t announce themselves with smoke, heat, or sprinklers.

A fire alarm is designed for one type of emergency. Workplace violence is another.

No law firm I ever stepped into, no financial service advisor or other professional services offices I have been to meetings at, has been built with secure facilities as a core design feature. 

And that is a good thing - we created spaces optimized for trust and access:

• reception areas that welcome walk-ins

• glass meeting rooms and open-plan floors

• frequent visitors, deliveries, contractors

• client-facing staff expected to be calm, polite, and helpful

Everything optimized for building relationships and the “softness” is often a core design feature. But it becomes a vulnerability when a volatile person appears at the front desk, a terror threat emerges down the street, gang violence moves from the suburbs, or when a dispute escapes the paper world and arrives in person.

And for some professions, the risk isn’t hypothetical and for you as an employer – the new normal when it comes to the nature or risks that your employees are exposed to includes violence. There is no denying it and avoiding the topic is not a responsible reaction (even though it is fully understandable). 

When you become a proxy target

In certain matters - such as organized-crime-linked legal proceedings, media exposure connected to financial wealth, power or politics, commercial disputes, insolvency, fraud investigations, family matters, etc. etc. - professionals such as executives, insurance experts, lawyer, prosecutor, mental health providers are not “the party”. Yet, you and I as the professionals, may be perceived as the obstacle, the focal point of frustration, the messenger, or the leverage point to gain access to money or something else.

The same logic hence applies to many high-risk roles and sectors in today's world:

• judges, prosecutors, court receptionists, 

• executives of companies and board members (in particular if perceived as to be high-net-worth or highly visible, or politically charged)

• journalists and editors, 

• banks and insurance companies handling disputes, claims, and recoveries

• private care providers managing emotionally charged situations, coercion risks, or family conflict. 

Threats can land on the person who is most accessible, not necessarily the person “most responsible”. 

Incidents unfold in minutes, not hours.

In these scenarios, the practical objective is not to “fight”. It’s to reduce harm long enough for people to move to safety while the police respond. That may be a few minutes. Sometimes less. And this is what brings me to a concept that feels uncomfortable—until you frame it correctly. 

Body Armor as part of your employee emergency protocol (not a lifestyle)

The world is changing, and we see a trend that protocols for safety are adapting. For high-risk workplaces, having body armor available on-site can be viewed in the same category as other emergency equipment:

• rarely used

• high consequence when needed, and

• most valuable in the first moments of an incident. 

Think of it as a fire extinguisher: you don’t buy it because you expect a fire every week. You buy it because the downside of not having it is 100% unacceptable.

In an office context, body armor is most relevant for the most exposed roles such as:

• reception/front-of-house,

• staff who meet unknown visitors,

• professionals who handle contentious meetings in person,

• executives and security teams responsible for initial response; and

• professionals who are public facing and that have a media presence.

  
  

It’s not about turning workplaces into fortresses. It’s about acknowledging that the office needs to address safety from violence as seriously and as methodically as we have been trained to do when it comes to safety from a fire. Which of the two that is the most unlikely to actually happen in today's world I will not try to predict.  

“But isn’t this extreme?”

It can feel that way—until you apply the same logic we already accept in other safety domains:

• We don’t call first-aid kits “extreme,” even though most employees will never use them.

• We don’t call defibrillators “paranoid,” even though cardiac arrest is statistically rare in many workplaces.

• We don’t call sprinkler systems “militarized,” even though they are engineered for catastrophic scenarios nor do we let the thoughts of a serious car accident discourage us from speaking about, and enforcing, the importance of wearing a seatbelt.

The question is not whether body armor is normal. The question is whether a general risk assessment makes it reasonable, and if current events make it unreasonable to not take actions to address employment safety also in relation to emergencies that are related to physical violence.

Credible risk and duty of care

Many organizations now treat violence and credible threats as a defined emergency category alongside fire and medical incidents.

In Sweden, public debate and official scrutiny have highlighted gaps in protection for individuals living under threat—an issue examined by the Swedish National Audit Office in 2024.

That context matters for employers, because duty-of-care planning isn’t just about preventing every incident (often impossible). It’s about reasonable preparedness when risk is foreseeable. Failing to plan, is planning to fail. 

If you’re considering this, the real work is the framework

Body armor should never be a standalone gesture. If it’s relevant at all, it belongs inside a broader “all-hazards” plan where the fundamental position is that you should avoid conflict at all costs but be prepared for the worst with the needed competence, protocols and products. 

• Prevention: threat reporting channels, visitor management, de-escalation training, access controls

• Detection: panic buttons, clear escalation paths, intelligence from credible sources

• Response: lockdown/evacuation protocols, internal communications, coordination with police

• Recovery: medical response capability and mental health support, post-incident support, documentation and review

  
  

If emergency violence protection is part of that plan, it raises practical questions you must answer:

• Who can access it, and under what trigger?

• Where is it stored (securely, but quickly reachable)?

• Who is trained to use it appropriately (and who is not)?

• How do you handle sizing, maintenance, and replacement?

• How do you communicate its presence internally without creating fear?

• How do you ensure compliance with local laws and workplace policies?

The Uncomfortable Conclusion

Employee safety in 2026 is no longer satisfied by a fire alarm, an evacuation map, and good intentions.

For some workplaces—law firms, courts, media organizations, banks, insurers, and certain private care settings—the risk profile has changed. And when the risk changes, the duty of care changes with it. So I say that preparedness is not panic - it’s being a responsible and professional employer. If you lead a high-risk organization, it may be time to ask a simple question: If a fast-moving threat walked through reception tomorrow, what would we do in the first 90 seconds - besides hope?

Kat Stranderg, 

Lawyer and Co-Founder of The Safe Civilian