Fit Is Not a Fixed Measurement
When organisations invest in safety footwear, significant attention is often given to certification, slip resistance, toe protection and durability. Yet one of the most important factors affecting both wearer comfort and workplace safety is frequently overlooked: fit is not static.
A pair of safety boots that feels comfortable during a fitting at 9:00am may feel entirely different after six or eight hours of continuous wear. Throughout a working shift, the human foot naturally changes shape as muscles fatigue, blood flow increases and soft tissues expand. Industry discussions suggest that feet can increase in volume by 15–20% over the course of a typical working day, particularly in physically demanding roles or warmer environments.
For health and safety professionals, this presents an important challenge. If footwear is only assessed under ideal conditions during a brief fitting or morning trial, organisations may never identify the problems that emerge when employees have spent an entire shift on their feet. The result can be discomfort, reduced productivity and, ultimately, an increased risk of injury.
The Reality of a Working Shift
Most safety footwear purchasing decisions are based on static measurements. Employees try on footwear while seated or after only a few minutes of walking, then confirm whether the fit is acceptable. While this approach may appear practical, it does not reflect the realities of modern workplaces.
Whether someone works in manufacturing, warehousing, logistics, construction, emergency services or aviation, their feet are constantly adapting throughout the day. Standing for prolonged periods, repeated walking, climbing stairs, driving vehicles and working on uneven surfaces all contribute to gradual foot expansion and changes in pressure distribution.
The PCIAW® Round Table highlighted that environmental conditions also play an important role. Temperature, altitude and even the time of day can influence the way footwear fits. As a result, participants stressed that wearer trials should not be confined to a single fitting session but should instead be conducted across different periods of the day or over prolonged operational use.
This shift in thinking encourages organisations to assess footwear in the environment where it will actually be worn rather than relying solely on showroom comfort.
Why Morning Trials Can Produce Misleading Results
A boot that appears supportive during the first hour of a shift may begin creating pressure points later in the day as the foot naturally expands. Tight toe boxes, restricted forefoot movement, or excessive compression around the midfoot may not become apparent until several hours have passed.
Employees often accept this discomfort as an unavoidable part of wearing safety footwear, but it should not be viewed as normal. Poor fit can gradually lead to blisters, hot spots and fatigue while encouraging workers to compensate through altered walking patterns.
These subtle changes in gait may place additional strain on the ankles, knees, hips and lower back. Over weeks or months, the cumulative impact can contribute to musculoskeletal disorders that reduce both employee wellbeing and operational performance.
The objective of a wearer trial should therefore be to understand how footwear performs after prolonged use rather than simply whether it feels comfortable during an initial fitting.
Comfort Is a Safety Issue
One of the strongest themes emerging from the PCIAW® Round Table was the close relationship between comfort and safety. Participants agreed that poorly fitting footwear can contribute to conditions ranging from blisters and plantar fasciitis through to spinal issues and an increased likelihood of workplace accidents.
For health and safety professionals, comfort should never be viewed as an optional benefit or an employee preference. Comfortable footwear enables workers to move naturally, maintain concentration and remain productive throughout demanding shifts.
Conversely, uncomfortable footwear often causes employees to alter the way they walk, loosen laces, delay replacing worn footwear, or even wear non-approved shoes that feel more comfortable. Each of these responses introduces additional workplace risk.
When organisations recognise comfort as an essential component of risk management rather than simply a purchasing consideration, footwear selection becomes a far more strategic process.
Longer Wearer Trials Deliver Better Procurement Decisions
Extending wearer trials over several days or weeks provides organisations with significantly richer information than a single fitting session.
Employees experience footwear across different temperatures, workloads and surfaces. They can identify issues with swelling, heel movement, arch support and overall fatigue that simply cannot be replicated during a short demonstration.
Longer trials also allow procurement teams to compare feedback across different departments. Warehouse operatives, engineers, maintenance staff, drivers and office-based employees who
occasionally enter operational environments may all interact with the same footwear differently.
Rather than relying solely on technical specifications, organisations gain evidence based on genuine workplace performance.
This approach reduces the likelihood of purchasing footwear that meets every certification requirement while failing to meet the practical needs of the workforce.
Every Workplace Is Different
The round table also demonstrated that understanding the wearer’s daily activities is just as important as understanding the footwear itself.
One participant working closely with police and ambulance services explained that surveys revealed ambulance personnel spent significantly more time indoors than procurement teams had originally assumed. That insight fundamentally changed the footwear requirements, shifting the design towards products better suited to both indoor and outdoor environments.
This example illustrates why meaningful wearer trials must be built around real operational tasks rather than assumptions.
Health and safety teams should ask whether employees spend most of their day walking concrete warehouse floors, climbing ladders, standing at production lines or moving between offices and operational environments. Each activity places different demands on footwear and may expose entirely different fit issues as the working day progresses.
Building Better Feedback into the Process
Successful wearer trials depend on more than simply issuing footwear and asking whether employees like it.
Organisations should encourage structured feedback throughout the trial period, asking wearers how footwear performs at the beginning, middle and end of a shift. Particular attention should be given to areas where discomfort develops later in the day, as these often indicate issues related to foot expansion rather than initial sizing.
Repeated feedback across a diverse workforce also helps manufacturers identify opportunities to improve lasts, sizing strategies and product design.
The PCIAW® Round Table reinforced that differences in regional foot shapes, gender-specific anatomical characteristics and workplace environments all influence how footwear fits. A single approach to sizing is unlikely to deliver optimal results across today’s increasingly diverse workforce.
Looking Beyond Compliance
Meeting safety standards will always remain essential, but compliance alone does not guarantee effective footwear.
End-user organisations increasingly recognise that successful safety footwear programmes must combine protection, comfort, ergonomics and long-term wearer acceptance. Achieving this balance requires procurement decisions that reflect how footwear performs after eight or ten hours of continuous wear rather than after ten minutes in a fitting room.
By incorporating afternoon assessments and prolonged wearer trials into procurement processes, employers gain a far more accurate understanding of real-world performance. Employees benefit from improved comfort, reduced fatigue and greater confidence in their footwear, while organisations reduce the likelihood of injuries, absenteeism and costly procurement mistakes.
