The new State-Regions Agreement (ASR) of April 17, 2025, governs safety training with specific deadlines: the 12-month transition period (through May 24, 2026) for updating the courses is about to end, while there is still plenty of time—one year—for mandatory employer training (May 24, 2027). With its entry into force on May 24 of last year, the new State-Regions Agreement has propelled the Italian occupational safety system to take a step that goes far beyond mere regulatory streamlining. The text, now in effect, does not merely consolidate the previous agreements but fundamentally reshapes the way training is conceived, designed, governed, and verified.
The Agreement was conceived as a framework document, designed to bring order to a fragmented and often contradictory landscape. Its deeper significance, however, becomes apparent only when it is viewed as an attempt to realign mandatory training with the actual complexity of contemporary work, where safety depends not only on knowledge of the rules, but also on the quality of decisions, behaviors, and organizational relationships.
From a collection of courses to a coherent educational system
One of the distinctive features of the new Agreement is its overall structure. Its sections and annexes are not merely a bureaucratic framework, but outline a system in which general organization, training courses, continuing education, teaching methodologies, credit recognition, and monitoring activities are held together by a coherent framework.
What does this mean in practical terms? It means that training can no longer be reduced to a list of hours to be delivered, but is instead viewed as an intentional, documented, and verifiable process. The emphasis placed on the training program represents a significant shift: each course must be designed with the company’s context, specific risks, and the profile of the participants in mind, moving beyond the idea of standardized training that is indifferent to actual working conditions.
This shift brings safety training closer to more established models of corporate learning, where effectiveness is determined by the ability to influence organizational behavior.
Training as a Governance Choice
The Agreement also redefines training responsibilities within the company in an innovative way. The employer is no longer merely the party obligated to “ensure that” training takes place, but becomes the guarantor of the consistency of the entire system. The explicitly introduced option to directly organize training for workers, supervisors, and managers—subject to the involvement of joint committees or after the fifteen-day period has elapsed—should be understood in this context.
This is clearly a call for organizational accountability: training, in fact, becomes an integral part of risk management decisions, rather than an outsourced activity disconnected from the life of the company. For companies, this implies developing new planning and management skills capable of integrating regulations, work organization, and a culture of prevention.
The relationship between the employer and the RSPP itself takes on a more strategic significance. Training for the employer—especially when the employer directly serves as the RSPP—is no longer merely a compliance requirement but a tool for aligning decision-making, enabling a better understanding of the organizational implications of safety-related decisions.
Training Providers and the Training Program
The new State-Regions Agreement also clearly defines who may provide training and continuing education in occupational health and safety, identifying three categories of entities: institutional bodies authorized by law to conduct training activities; accredited entities, which hold regional accreditation and have at least three years of documented experience in safety training, with the exception of courses for workers, supervisors, and managers, for which accreditation alone is sufficient; and other qualified entities, including authorized interprofessional funds, recognized joint bodies, and trade unions with comparatively greater representation.
From an organizational standpoint, the Agreement requires each training provider to develop a structured training program that outlines the objectives, content, instructional structure, methodologies used, support tools, and criteria for assessing learning and training quality.
In addition, the maximum number of participants per course is reduced from 35 to 30, and the requirement to maintain an attendance record—in either paper or electronic format—is formalized as an essential element for tracking the training program.
Terms, Updates, and Credits: The End of Automation
In terms of content, the Agreement specifically addresses the duration and frequency of courses, introducing greater national consistency. The 4 hours of general training for workers remain in place, while specific training is structured according to the level of risk, with varying durations and refresher courses every five years.
The most notable change concerns the role of the safety officer, for whom initial training has been increased to 12 hours and refresher training is now required every two years. This decision clearly highlights the centrality of this role in day-to-day safety management, recognizing that the safety officer’s function is not merely one of oversight but also of operational leadership.
The regulations governing educational credits are also particularly significant. The recognition of prior learning is no longer automatic but is contingent upon verifying that the content is substantially consistent with the new regulatory framework. In other words, the certificate loses its value if it is not backed by a truly equivalent course of study, marking the shift from an administrative approach to a quality-based approach to education.
Teaching Methods: Quality, Traceability, Participation
It is perhaps in the area of delivery methods that the new Agreement most clearly expresses its cultural ambition. In-person training remains central, especially for the practical components, but distance learning is regulated much more strictly.
Asynchronous e-learning is permitted only if supported by LMS platforms capable of ensuring the traceability of activities, active learner participation, access to individual learning objects, and learning assessments. Synchronous videoconferencing is based on a model of real-time interaction: each participant must connect using a dedicated device; the use of smartphones is not permitted, and group classes connected via a single terminal are not allowed.
Blended learning thus takes on a strategic role. It is no longer a stopgap solution but a recognized instructional model capable of integrating digital learning with in-person instruction, reserving the latter for moments of greatest experiential value. It is a framework that implicitly opens the door to the use of active learning methods, simulations, and situated learning—approaches that are particularly relevant for professionals such as supervisors.
Assessment of Learning and Training Effectiveness
Another significant change is the introductionof a mandatory final assessment of learning for all courses, including refresher courses. Assessment has become a structural requirement of the training program. This is accompanied by a growing focus on evaluating the effectiveness of training in the workplace, drawing on assessment models that examine the ability to apply the skills learned in daily practice.
This paradigm shift brings safety training closer to the learning analytics and impact measurement models already in use in other areas of vocational training.
Supervisors, HR, and RLS: Cornerstones of a Shared Culture
The role of the safety officer emerges as one of the cornerstones of the new system. The increase in hours, the frequency of training sessions, and the focus on behavioral content indicate a desire to transform the safety officer into a facilitator of a safety culture, rather than merely someone who carries out inspections.
Alongside this figure, the new Agreement indirectly strengthens the role of HR departments and workplace safety representatives (RSLs). For HR, safety training can no longer be managed as an administrative task separate from other skill-development policies. For workplace safety representatives (RSLs), the increased structuring of training programs and assessment systems opens up opportunities for more meaningful participation in identifying training needs and evaluating the effectiveness of training.
Training That Anticipates Risk
Taken as a whole, the 2025 Single State-Regions Agreement paints a picture of an organization that seeks to anticipate risk rather than react to it. The elimination of any ambiguity regarding the timing of training for new hires—based on the clear principle that one cannot work in the presence of risks without prior training—is a step in exactly this direction.
Viasky's Role
Training becomes the organizational infrastructure of prevention: a continuous, traceable, and verifiable learning ecosystem that involves employers, occupational safety and health managers, supervisors, HR, and worker representatives. It is no longer a series of courses, but a cultural framework that seeks to realign standards, behaviors, and decisions.
The role of training partners is also changing, as they must be able to understand and interpret the organization’s safety culture. With over thirty years of experience in occupational health and safety training, Viasky works alongside companies to rethink their training programs—starting with off-the-shelf solutions and moving toward customized designs that align with the specific context, risks, and organizational identity—while providing the IT expertise needed to support this complex transformation. Not as a course provider, but as a tool in the hands of the organization, recognizing that even those who deliver training must understand and respect the client company’s safety culture.
