When people think about workplace injuries, they usually assume the greatest danger exists at large factories, mines, steel plants, and major industrial sites. The logic seems straightforward. The bigger the operation, the more machinery, equipment, vehicles, and potentially hazardous processes it has. Yet the numbers tell a far more complex story. Behind the familiar picture of workplace risk are actually two very different realities. One belongs to large businesses. The other belongs to small enterprises. And the gap between them is much larger than most people realize.
Although overall workplace injuries declined in Kazakhstan in 2025, the trend moved in opposite directions depending on the size of the business. Large and medium-sized enterprises reduced the number of injured workers from 2,100 to 1,941. That was a decline of 159 cases, or 7.6%. Small businesses moved the other way. The number of injured workers increased from 371 to 387. In absolute terms, the increase may seem modest. But the trend matters because it occurred while the national picture was improving.
The structure of workplace injuries is even more revealing. At first glance, the main risks still appear to be concentrated in large businesses. Out of 2,328 injured workers nationwide, 1,941 came from large and medium-sized enterprises. That represents more than four-fifths of all recorded cases. Small businesses accounted for only 387 injured workers. But the picture changes dramatically when fatalities are taken into account.
Small businesses recorded 67 deaths among 387 injured workers. Large and medium-sized enterprises recorded 117 deaths among 1,941 injured workers. The contrast becomes striking when the scale is compared. Large businesses had nearly five times more injured workers, yet the number of fatalities was less than twice as high. This creates a surprising paradox. Small businesses account for a much smaller share of overall workplace injuries, but fatal outcomes occur far more often.
It is tempting to jump to a simple conclusion and assume that small businesses pay less attention to safety. The reality ismore complicated.
The issue is not so much discipline as the way the businessitself is organized and how its internal processes arestructured. Large companies typically operate with established safety systems. They employ workplace safety specialists. They conduct internal inspections. They organize regular employee training. They carry out medical examinations. They investigate incidents. They invest in upgrading equipment and providing protective gear. Even when mistakes happen, the system itself is designed to identify risks and respond to them.
Large companies also operate in a much more formal environment. Incidents are recorded. Occupational diseases are tracked. Working conditions are monitored. This does not mean risks are low. Many industrial workplaces remain inherently dangerous. But risk management is built into the way these organizations function.
The injury profile of large and medium-sized enterprises reflects this reality. Manufacturing accounts for 37.1% of injured workers in this group. Mining contributes another 18.9%. Healthcare and social services account for 9.4%. These are sectors where complex production processes, heavy equipment, and long-term exposure to workplace hazards are common.
Another figure is particularly revealing. Out of 408 officially recorded occupational disease cases nationwide, 407 came from large and medium-sized enterprises. In practical terms, almost the entire national record of occupational illness comes from this segment of the economy.
At first glance, this may suggest that large companies have more dangerous workplaces. But there is another explanation. Large employers are more likely to conduct regular medical examinations, maintain detailed records, and identify health issues linked to work. Where monitoring is stronger, more cases are usually detected. In addition, employees in largecompanies often work there for many years, which makes itpossible to track a worker’s health condition over time.
Small businesses operate under very different conditions. Their risk profile is less industrial and more operational. Workplace injuries are often linked not to complex technological processes but to specific incidents. A fall from a height. Loading and unloading goods. Contact with equipment. Vehicle movement. Work at small job sites. In these situations, a single mistake can immediately lead toserious consequences.
The ability to manage risk is also much more limited. A smallenterprise rarely has a dedicated team of occupational safetyspecialists. Regular employee training is not always affordable. Protective equipment is often purchased only when absolutely necessary. Workplace safety frequently depends on the experience and judgment of the owner, supervisor, or foreman.
As a result, a different economy of risk emerges. In large businesses, safety is built into the operating system. In small businesses, it often depends on individual decisions made day by day.
This does not mean that small businesses are “moredangerous” than large ones, since registered data show thatthe overall scale of workplace injuries at small enterprises isseveral times lower. However, when a dangerous situationdoes occur, the consequences tend to be more severe. In otherwords, the cost of error is higher.
This leads to another important conclusion. Workplace injuries in small businesses cannot be viewed only through the lens of inspections and penalties. When safety is seen solely as a set of regulations, audits, and fines, many risks inevitably remain hidden. In many cases, the issue is not a lack of willingness to follow the rules. The issue is limited resources and limited access to practical safety tools.
Against this backdrop, two very different models of workplace risk become visible. In large businesses, the main challenges come from complex production systems, long-term exposure to hazards, and the management of large-scale risks. In small businesses, risk is often event-driven and emerges through day-to-day operations. These are fundamentally different environments, and they require different approaches.
Small businesses require a different logic. In a smallworkshop, shop floor, or work crew, prevention andoccupational safety should not mean more complexrequirements or additional bureaucracy. They should functionas an accessible safety infrastructure: simple, clear, andapplicable in everyday work.
The 2025 data shows that workplace injuries in Kazakhstan cannot be treated as a single problem with a single cause and a single solution. Behind the national statistics are two separate economies of risk. One belongs to large enterprises with established safety systems and formal risk management. The other belongs to small businesses, where safety often depends on the experience of a few individuals and the resources available to a particular company.
That is why the same policy does not always produce the same result. A safety approach that works at a large steel plant may have little value for a small construction crew or a family-owned manufacturing business. Workplace injuries are gradually becoming more than a discussion about safety procedures. They are becoming a discussion about howdifferently working conditions are organized across differentsegments of the economy and why they require differentapproaches.
Perhaps the biggest paradox is this: the highest risks are not always found where there is the most machinery, the largest workforce, or the biggest industrial facilities. Sometimes the greatest risks exist where the resources to manage them are simply more limited.
Alena Romanova, National Bureau of Economic Research, exclusively for www.economyKZ.org
