PRL in Spain and SG-SST in Colombia: organising both within one platform
A group operating in Spain and Colombia needs a consolidated view of prevention, while its local teams work with different obligations, documents and institutions. A shared platform can improve coordination when its model preserves those differences and compares only information that is meaningfully comparable across operations.
The main decision is what will be common and what will remain local. An action identifier, owner and evidence record can share a structure. The obligation behind that action, its deadline or the recipient of a report requires local context. This distinction should be designed before information is migrated.
Create a common foundation with local ownership
Start with an inventory of legal entities, sites, activities and user profiles. A company and a site are not the same unit of responsibility. Each record should identify the entity it belongs to and the person maintaining its data. Group consolidation should build on that foundation rather than on an unrestricted shared folder.
For conceptual context, consult the Explore entries on occupational risk prevention and the OSH management system. Their terms can be connected, but they should not automatically become legal equivalents between the two countries.
Localise requirements that affect operations
Law 31/1995 is a central reference for prevention in Spain; Decree 1072 of 2015 develops Colombia’s SG-SST. Using each framework and its supporting legislation, competent local owners need to identify the requirements applicable to the specific activity.
Localisation affects participation bodies, reporting procedures and required documentation, among other matters. Avoid simply renaming a Spanish template for Colombian use without reviewing its content. A field can look identical while representing a different obligation, different participants or a different decision-making process.
Share processes without standardising every document
The action cycle—identification, assignment, implementation and verification—provides a useful common structure. Within it, each country may require specific criteria, documents or communications. The model should preserve these differences and prevent a local update from unintentionally changing requirements at other sites.
- Common: identifiers, owners, history and links between records.
- Local: requirements, forms and applicability criteria.
- Shared under control: corporate catalogues and training material.
- Restricted: personal or health information according to roles and applicable requirements.
- Consolidated: management information with comparable definitions.
Test permission settings using actual profiles at each organisational level. A site coordinator should not discover another entity’s records simply because a visual filter was removed. The intended scope must also be preserved in exports and reports, where access problems can otherwise remain unnoticed during normal screen-based demonstrations.
Example: a corporate measure for internal traffic
Imagine the group identifies similar pedestrian–vehicle interaction problems at two sites, one in Spain and one in Colombia. Management shares a preventive criterion and asks each site to review routes. Local teams assess their conditions, select measures and retain the documentation appropriate to their respective systems.
The group follows progress using common statuses and evidence, while each entity retains its obligations and decisions. This illustrative example shows useful coordination: sharing learning and priorities without assuming that an assessment performed at one site automatically resolves conditions at the other.
Compare indicators with visible definitions
Before adding results together or ranking sites, check the formula, denominator, period and scope. Two indicators called “frequency” may use different calculations. Corporate indicators should be labelled as such and maintain an understandable relationship with local measures, without replacing those required in each jurisdiction.
Comparison also requires visibility of coverage changes. If one entity includes contractors in an indicator and another does not, the result can invite misleading conclusions. Present those differences alongside the figure and retain the sources needed to reproduce the calculation and explain subsequent revisions.
Roll out with country and entity tests
Select a common process and one local requirement from each country for the pilot. Test creation, review, permissions, export and consolidation. Complement the exercise with the guides to multisite management in Spain and management by NIT and site in Colombia.
When exploring Sabentis for prevention and OSH, present the complete multinational scenario. The demonstration should reveal how local context is preserved and how management obtains a consolidated view that can be explained and used to make decisions, rather than simply showing identical screens in different languages.
Configuration tests for Spain and Colombia
Acceptance testing should include deliberate mistakes using fictional data. A sound configuration helps detect attempts to use another country’s reference and allows correction while preserving the context of the legal entity that actually carries out the relevant activity.
- Create similarly named sites in different countries and check that searches identify their respective legal entities clearly.
- Test a deadline with users in both time zones and confirm which local date governs each action.
- Open a consolidated report and retrieve the original figure, formula and exclusions for each entity included in it.
- Test a translated corporate document and check that it retains its local variants and the owner responsible for maintenance.
- Verify an export from each country and confirm that it respects the access scope assigned to that user.
Frequently asked questions
Does translating a template make it suitable for another country?
Translation addresses language, but does not establish legal or operational equivalence. Review purpose, responsibilities, references and required documents in the destination jurisdiction. As an implementation practice, validate a local sample before extending the template across all sites operating in that country.
Can a common hazard catalogue be maintained?
It can provide a corporate foundation if each team can add context and apply its relevant methodology. Define who changes the catalogue and how updates are communicated. Sharing a label does not mean that exposure, assessment or controls are identical across different operations.
How can confusion between Spanish NIF or CIF references and Colombian NIT be avoided?
Use a stable internal identifier and tax fields clearly labelled by country and entity. Test searches, integrations and exports with anonymised examples. Avoid forcing every format through a single validation rule that rejects correct information or mixes records belonging to different companies.
What information should group management see?
First define the decisions management needs to make, then provide comparable indicators with access to permitted context. Aggregate or restrict personal information according to purpose and responsibilities. Sharing a platform does not by itself mean that every corporate user needs access to individual case files.
Legislation and sources consulted
- Law 31/1995 on occupational risk prevention: Spain: the occupational risk prevention framework.
- Decree 1072 of 2015: Colombia: the SG-SST framework. Identify local obligations for each entity and activity.
Sources consulted on 6 October 2026. The practical checklist proposes management checks; its application should reflect each organisation’s scope.
