In a world where safety is paramount, it’s difficult to quantify how badly we need to understand that equipment inspections aren’t simply a cost; they are an assurance service.
“I’m calling because I want to become a qualified lifting inspector for the company I work for. What’s the process and how much does it cost? These third-party inspections are getting too expensive.”
This is a typical call I receive almost weekly – and one that scares the life out of me says Justin Boehm, LEEA’s Regional Manager, Australia and New Zealand.
In a world where safety is paramount, it’s difficult to quantify how badly we need to understand that equipment inspections aren’t simply a cost; they are an assurance service.
When lifting equipment inspections are viewed purely through a financial lens, something critical occurs – safety is seen as a cost. The inspection itself is not merely a transaction, it is a verification process that confirms whether equipment is safe to use, whether risks are understood, and whether the people making those decisions are competent to do so.
Yet the economic pressure to reduce inspection costs is increasing.
So why is this happening?
Part of the answer lies in a broader shift that is beginning to affect industrial sectors worldwide.
A recent report from the World Economic Forum, the Future of Jobs Report 2025, highlights the scale of change currently underway in the global workforce. According to the report, nearly 40 per cent of core skills are expected to change by 2030, while more than 60 per cent of employers identify skills gaps as the primary barrier to business transformation.
At first glance, these findings may seem far removed from the daily realities of lifting operations. However, the implications are already being felt across sites in Australia and New Zealand.
As experienced workers retire and technology continues to reshape the way equipment is designed, used, and monitored, industries are confronting a new challenge: how do we ensure competence in an environment where the skills landscape is constantly shifting?
This is where I like to interpret what could be described as the “assurance economy.” In simple terms, the assurance economy recognises that economic value is increasingly created not just by equipment or labour, but by trusted verification and specialist expertise.
In lifting, assurance means knowing that a trained professional has reviewed equipment, identified potential issues, and verified that it is safe to use. It means understanding that inspections are carried out by individuals who possess the knowledge and experience to diagnose wear, compatibility issues, and emerging risks.
When a LEEA-trained technician performs an inspection, the value is not limited to the physical check of equipment. The real value lies in the assurance, that the person performing the task has received structured training, been assessed against recognised industry standards, and understands the operational risks associated with lifting equipment. That assurance is what protects workers on site.
Returning to that phone call earlier in the week, the caller was not wrong to question rising costs. Businesses everywhere are facing pressure to improve productivity while controlling expenses The lifting industry is no exception.
However, there is an important difference between improving efficiency and removing independent assurance from a safety-critical process.
When organisations attempt to internalise inspection roles without the necessary training or experience, they often underestimate the complexity involved. Inspecting lifting equipment requires more than recognising obvious damage. It involves understanding load ratings, compatibility between components, wear patterns, inspection intervals, and the environments in which equipment operates.
In many cases, the most dangerous defects are the ones that are not immediately visible. Replacing an independent inspection regime with an internal process therefore introduces a new layer of risk. Instead of reducing costs, organisations may unintentionally remove one of the most important safety barriers protecting their workforce.
The challenge becomes even greater when viewed through the lens of workforce demographics. Across much of the western world, industries are experiencing a gradual loss of experienced technical workers as older generations retire. At the same time, younger workers entering the workforce are often more familiar with digital systems than the mechanical equipment that still dominates many lifting environments.
The World Economic Forum’s research highlights that demographic change and technological transformation are forcing industries to rethink how they develop and verify workforce competence.
For the users of lifting equipment, this creates a difficult balance. Organisations must improve productivity and deliver projects efficiently, but they must do so in a labour market where specialist skills are becoming harder to find. Knowledge can be given quickly, but critically – skills and behaviours take time to build.
If users decide to do their own inspections, they not only take on the risk, but they also take on a difficult workforce capability decision.
The lifting industry operates in environments where the consequences of failure can be immediate and severe. When equipment fails or loads move unexpectedly, the margin for error disappears very quickly.
For that reason, lifting safety has always relied on multiple layers of protection: properly designed equipment, trained operators, careful lift planning, and regular inspection of lifting gear. Inspection services form one of the final verification steps in that process.
In the context of the assurance economy, inspection services should be viewed less as a regulatory obligation and more as a professional verification function– similar to the role auditors
play in financial systems or engineers
play in structural certification.
One of the most important insights from the World Economic Forum’s research is that industries are moving toward greater emphasis on verified skills and demonstrable competence. For the lifting sector, this trend reinforces the importance of structured training and competency-based assessment.
Practical training remains essential for those working with lifting equipment. Identifying defects in wire rope, assessing the condition of lifting accessories, and understanding the behaviour of mechanical components requires hands-on knowledge that cannot be gained from theory alone.
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the assurance economy concept is a shift in how we think about value within the lifting industry.
For many years, value was primarily associated with equipment – larger cranes, stronger lifting gear, and faster delivery.
Today, value increasingly sits in something less visible: confidence.
Confidence that equipment is safe. Confidence that inspections are meaningful. Confidence that the people responsible for those decisions are competent and accountable. Inspection services are not simply a line item in a budget. They are part of a broader assurance system that protects workers, businesses, and projects from preventable failure.
The next time someone calls to ask how they can eliminate the cost of third-party inspections, the real question may not be about saving money.It may be about understanding what those inspections are actually worth.Because in an industry where the consequences of failure can be catastrophic, assurance is not an optional extra.
Author Justin Boehm is the Regional Manager – Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific at Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA)
