## 5 Discussion
### Study Limitations  
The study presents several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.  
First, its exclusive focus on Italian companies limits the generalizability of the findings to other geographic or cultural contexts. OSH practices and the adoption of technologies can vary significantly across countries or regions due to differences in regulations, cultures, and contextual factors. Moreover, even within the Italian context, the regional and sectoral distribution of participating companies was not balanced, with a predominance of responses from Northern Italy and underrepresentation from certain ATECO manufacturing sectors.  
In addition, the use of questionnaires--while practical and efficient--has inherent drawbacks. Although the sample examined is relevant in terms of size and target population, the reliability of the responses may be affected by potential response biases. In particular, the use of self-reported data may be subject to social desirability and recall biases, as respondents might overstate positive behaviors or misremember past events. To help reduce these effects, the study used a storytelling approach with realistic scenarios, encouraging reflection on external cases rather than direct self-assessment. While this method lessens some bias by distancing respondents from direct self-reporting, the limitations of self-reported data remain and should be acknowledged. Moreover, the storytelling approach itself, although innovative and engaging, introduces a potential risk of generalization. The stories, designed to capture typical safety scenarios, may not encompass the full complexity and diversity of safety dynamics experienced across different organizations or settings. As such, there is a possibility that respondents' interpretations and answers based on these scenarios do not fully reflect real-world variations or subtleties in safety practices. Furthermore, the closed-ended questions used in the survey may limit the respondents' ability to fully express their opinions and experiences, reducing the depth of the collected data.  
Another limitation concerns the focus of the stories provided, which concentrate exclusively on accidents and near-miss, relatively restricted events. As a result, perceptions of safety practices may be influenced by the non-ordinary nature of these events. The findings might therefore not fully reflect day-to-day safety management, which is equally important for the continuous improvement of OSH practices. A further limitation is the lack of historical context regarding the frequency and nature of past incidents. Including data on previous accidents or near-miss scenarios might have provided a deeper understanding of how companies responded to real events and whether these were linked to new technology adoption.  
Furthermore, the study did not thoroughly examine how safety procedures can differ among various industrial sectors. Given the diversity of sectors included in the sample, sector-specific analysis was limited by insufficient data granularity. Safety dynamics and priorities can differ significantly between high-risk industries, such as chemical or mining sectors, and lower-risk industries, such as services or retail. These aspects were not sufficiently explored, limiting the understanding of safety practices in different contexts.  
Finally, the study focused on only 15 safety actions or systems, which might not cover the entire spectrum of measures that could influence OSH. Other relevant factors, such as safety culture and leadership, were not analyzed in depth, leaving potentially crucial aspects unexplored.  
While these limitations do not invalidate the study's results, they should be considered when interpreting the conclusions and implications for OSH within organizations.