EyeWarn focus group: Industry and policy

At the recent EyeWarn stakeholder event, participants were split into three focus groups to discuss a scenario set in a near-future workplace, where worker wellbeing and productivity are supported through advanced biometric technologies.

This focus group consisted of industry and policy makers.

Scenario

A mid-sized logistics company has implemented an eye-tracking fatigue detection system across its workforce, including office staff, warehouse operatives, and long-haul drivers. The company reports improvements in safety metrics and reduced accident rates. However, employee reactions are mixed. Some workers appreciate the proactive support for wellbeing, while others express concerns about surveillance, data use, and potential disciplinary consequences. Trade unions and regulators are beginning to take interest, and the company is considering scaling the system across multiple regions. The company needs expert perspectives to evaluate the broader implications of this technology.

Discussions

This discussion explored the implications of introducing eye-tracking fatigue detection systems in workplaces, focusing on safety, regulation, and worker rights. While participants acknowledged potential benefits in high-risk environments, the overall view was cautious. Key concerns centred on privacy, data use, and the broader impact within existing labour conditions.

A central theme was that these systems cannot be assessed in isolation. Their effects depend on workplace power dynamics, where employees may have limited ability to refuse participation. As a result, technologies intended to support wellbeing could instead reinforce monitoring and control.

Regulatory framework needs

Participants agreed that current regulations are insufficient for governing biometric technologies. Eye-tracking data was seen as highly sensitive, with the potential to reveal information about health, stress, and neurological conditions. There was strong support for classifying it as high-risk and subject to enhanced protections.

Employer access to individual-level data was widely opposed. Its use for performance management, hiring, dismissal, or insurance purposes was considered inappropriate. Clear rules are needed on data storage, retention, and deletion.

Fatigue is influenced by factors beyond work, such as childcare, commuting, and health. Using such data in employment decisions risks indirect discrimination, requiring safeguards that reflect these external influences.

Data privacy, consent, and ownership

Consent in workplace settings was viewed as problematic. Even when participation is presented as voluntary, workers may feel unable to refuse due to job insecurity or organisational pressure, undermining genuine consent.

Participants emphasised that individuals should retain ownership of their biometric data, including control over storage, access, and sharing. Local or personal storage was preferred over centralised employer systems.

Data breaches were a major concern given the sensitivity of biometric data. Participants highlighted the potential for serious harm, reinforcing the need for strict privacy protections.

Privacy was also seen as a collective issue. Even anonymised data can enable inferences about individuals or groups, raising risks of indirect identification and misuse.

Standards, certification, and reliability

Fatigue was described as complex and context-dependent, making accurate measurement difficult. Participants stressed the need for independent certification and sector-specific standards before deployment.

Environmental conditions, such as lighting and movement, may affect system accuracy. Fixed thresholds were seen as problematic, as individuals experience fatigue differently.

Misclassification was identified as a key risk. Some individuals may appear fatigued without reduced performance, while others may function effectively despite fatigue. This creates risks of both false positives and false negatives, especially if the data informs decisions.

Labour laws, rights, and liability

Fatigue monitoring raises questions about responsibility and liability. If a worker is identified as fatigued but no action is taken, accountability remains unclear.

Participants were concerned that such systems could weaken labour protections by enabling managerial pressure or justifying disciplinary action. Employers may also rely on monitoring to demonstrate compliance without addressing underlying issues such as workload or staffing.

There were also concerns about extending workplace control into private life. Since fatigue is shaped by external factors, monitoring may lead to indirect judgement of personal circumstances.

Employer incentives were seen as a limiting factor, as organisations may avoid adopting systems that expose structural problems or require costly changes.

Benefits, risks, and conditions for acceptability

Some benefits were identified in high-risk sectors such as healthcare, construction, and transport, including improved safety and earlier detection of fatigue-related risks. Individuals may also find value in personal monitoring.

However, the risks were considered substantial. These include increased surveillance, reduced autonomy, and potential discrimination. Continuous monitoring may alter behaviour, leading to self-censorship and reduced trust.

Participants noted that fatigue monitoring does not address root causes such as long hours, understaffing, and poor job design. As a result, it risks becoming a superficial solution.

The psychological impact was also a concern. Constant feedback about fatigue, especially where workers lack control over schedules, may increase stress and anxiety.

Acceptability depends on strict conditions: full worker control over data, no employer access to individual-level information, and use of anonymised data only for safety or wellbeing. Collective approaches, such as sharing aggregated data through trade unions, were also supported.

Unintended consequences

Participants identified several unintended consequences. Workers may conceal fatigue to avoid negative outcomes, undermining the system’s purpose. Monitoring may also change behaviour, reducing natural interactions and increasing self-awareness.

There was concern that organisations may rely on monitoring rather than addressing structural issues, shifting focus away from improving working conditions.

Additionally, constant fatigue alerts may increase anxiety, particularly where workers have limited control over their workload or schedules.

Reflections and conclusion

Participants expressed a largely sceptical view of workplace fatigue monitoring, citing concerns about surveillance, data misuse, and unequal power dynamics. While there was conditional acceptance in high-risk sectors, this depended on strict safeguards and worker control over data.

Trust emerged as a central issue. Participants questioned whether such systems could be implemented in ways that genuinely prioritise wellbeing.

Overall, while fatigue monitoring may offer limited benefits in specific contexts, addressing structural causes—such as excessive workloads and inadequate staffing—was seen as a more effective and ethical solution.

The discussion explored the implications of implementing eye-tracking fatigue detection systems in workplaces, focusing on safety, regulation, and worker rights. While some benefits were acknowledged—particularly in high-risk environments—the overall perspective was cautious. Key concerns centred on privacy, data use, and impacts within existing labour conditions.

A central theme was that such technologies cannot be evaluated in isolation. Their effects are shaped by workplace power dynamics, where employees may have limited ability to refuse participation. As a result, systems intended to support wellbeing may instead reinforce monitoring and managerial control.