We offer courses and training; we perform translations and versions in technical languages: Portuguese, English, Spanish, French, Italian, Mandarin, German, Russian, Swedish, Dutch, Hindi, Japanese and others (please inquire).
NR Course: Hidden Risk?
The translation of Regulatory Standard (NR) content requires strict technical accuracy and clear professional accountability. NRs deal directly with occupational risk management and must comply with NR 01, the specific Regulatory Standards, the Brazilian Labor Code (CLT), Law No. 5,194 of 1966, CONFEA Resolution No. 1,025, as well as technical standards such as ISO 45001, ISO 12100, and ABNT NBR ISO 41015. Critical activities including lockout and tagout, work at height, machinery operation, confined spaces, and electrical procedures depend on the correct and precise use of technical terminology. Translators, interpreters, and automated tools do not hold legal technical qualifications nor issue an ART (Technical Responsibility Record), which compromises the technical validity of the material and significantly increases the likelihood of errors.
Translation failures create immediate risk. Incorrectly conveyed instructions directly affect the competence requirements established in items 1.6.1 and 1.6.4 of NR 01 and undermine the safe execution mandated by the Regulatory Standards. During audits, inspections, and technical investigations, content translated without proper technical validation is readily identified, weakening the evidence of effective training. Consequently, translating NRs without the involvement of a legally qualified professional exposes the organization to legal, operational, and liability risks in the event of accidents.
Do high-risk courses require practical activities, thereby making translated courses unfeasible?
Regulatory Standards such as NR 35, NR 10, NR 12, NR 18, NR 33, NR 37, and NR 06 unequivocally require mandatory practical activities, as they address serious and potentially fatal risks. NR 01 itself reinforces that the worker must demonstrate competence, which goes beyond theoretical knowledge and includes the correct execution of procedures, sound decision-making in real work environments, and appropriate responses to hazardous situations. Activities such as operational simulations, technical inspections, proper selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), application of emergency procedures, and control of hazardous energy depend on clear, direct, and technically accurate communication between the instructor and the worker.
In this context, the use of translators, interpreters, or artificial intelligence tools as intermediaries compromises the understanding of practical content by introducing delays, ambiguities, and risks of misinterpretation. Such interference reduces the effectiveness of training and weakens the demonstration of competence required by the standards. During audits, inspections, and technical investigations, this type of intermediation is frequently characterized as a training deficiency, exposing the company to legal challenges, operational risks, and liability in the event of accidents.
Workers in an industrial environment carry out inspection and operational alignment activities while wearing full PPE. The scene highlights the importance of clear communication and technical understanding during routine tasks and safety training.
Who is held responsible when a course relies on a translator, interpreter, or an instructor without adequate technical expertise?
Responsibility primarily rests with the contracting company and with those who organize, authorize, or validate the training. By choosing courses delivered with the support of a translator, interpreter, or an instructor who lacks technical mastery of the regulatory content, the company assumes the risk of failing to meet the training requirements established under NR 01, particularly regarding the demonstration of competence. In the event of an inspection, audit, or accident, legal accountability does not fall on the translator or the tool used, but on the organization, its managers, and its legal representatives, for having accepted a training model incapable of ensuring adequate technical understanding.
In addition, the professional formally identified as the instructor or person responsible for the course may also be held liable if they do not possess compatible technical qualifications or cannot demonstrate effective command of the content delivered. The lack of technical competence, combined with the absence of an ART or formal technical responsibility, significantly weakens the defense in audits, investigations, and judicial proceedings. In such cases, linguistic intermediation is not regarded as a mitigating factor, but rather as an aggravating one, as it demonstrates that the training failed to ensure the proper transfer of critical knowledge necessary for occupational risk control.
NR Training Courses: Does Translation by an Individual Without Technical Qualifications Constitute Illegal Professional Practice?
Yes. In certain contexts, the translation of Regulatory Standard (NR) content by individuals without technical training may constitute the illegal practice of a technical activity, particularly when the translation goes beyond a purely linguistic function and directly interferes with regulatory, operational, and safety-related content used in mandatory training. NRs are not ordinary informational material; they are part of the legal framework for occupational risk control and require demonstrable technical competence in accordance with NR 01, the Brazilian Labor Code (CLT), Law No. 5,194/1966, and CONFEA Resolution No. 1,025. When translation involves the interpretation of procedures, hazards, operational limits, or safety criteria without proper technical qualification and without an ART, it clearly constitutes a deviation into technical practice, directly affecting training validity and legal accountability.
| Situation analyzed | Technical–legal assessment |
|---|---|
| Literal translation of institutional text, not used for training | Linguistic activity with no direct technical impact |
| Translation used in mandatory NR training | Becomes part of a technical training process |
| Translator without technical background in OSH or engineering | Lack of required technical competence |
| Translation influencing procedures, hazards, or practical actions | Improper technical interference |
| Absence of ART or formal technical responsibility | Proven technical irregularity |
| Use of the material in audits or technical investigations | Weakens defense and training validity |
| Final outcome | May constitute illegal practice of a technical activity |
When a translation is used as the basis for mandatory regulatory training and affects the understanding of risks, procedures, and control measures, it is no longer a simple translation task, but rather an unauthorized technical act, with potential characterization as illegal practice, in addition to generating legal, operational, and liability risks in the event of an accident.
Does combining technical responsibility with the role of training instructor create additional risk?
The instructor must be fluent in the language in which the course is delivered because, in NR training, partial understanding is unacceptable. The standards require demonstrated competence, and this depends on precise technical communication, continuous verification of understanding, and clear operational instructions. When the instructor does not fully master the language, control over the training process and risk management is compromised. The instructor is unable to properly explain technical nuances, correct misunderstandings in real time, or confirm that workers have truly understood and are capable of performing the procedures as required. In high-risk Regulatory Standards, an incorrectly conveyed term can lead to an incorrect procedure, and an incorrect procedure can result in an accident.
Furthermore, language fluency is essential to meet the requirements of NR 01 regarding training effectiveness and proof of competence. The instructor must conduct assessments, practical simulations, safety briefings, verification questions, emergency instructions, and immediate interventions during practical activities. When communication depends on a translator, interpreter, or artificial intelligence tool, it becomes delayed, fragmented, and prone to technical distortion. As a result, the instructor is no longer the direct source of knowledge but merely validates information that they do not fully control. In audits and technical investigations, this situation is commonly identified as a training deficiency, as the organization cannot demonstrate that understanding was direct, complete, and technically consistent, increasing legal and operational exposure for both the company and those who authorized the training.
Can NR courses, such as NR 35, be delivered by a single instructor?
In practice, this is rarely feasible. Standards such as NR 35 encompass a broad set of technical competencies that are seldom concentrated in a single professional. NR 01 establishes that training must demonstrate competence compatible with the risks involved, which includes risk analysis and assessment, operational planning, inspection and selection of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), emergency procedures, rescue at height, and basic first aid concepts. Each of these subjects requires specific technical knowledge, practical experience, and, in many cases, distinct professional backgrounds.
When training is delivered by only one individual, there is a significant risk of technical superficiality in critical topics, as well as practical gaps that undermine the effectiveness of the training. For this reason, programs conducted without a multidisciplinary team are frequently challenged during audits, inspections, and, most importantly, in post-incident investigations, where the assessment focuses not on the mere existence of a certificate, but on the technical consistency and robustness of the training process.
A professional wearing a hard hat and holding a clipboard observes the production area, indicating supervision, risk assessment, and verification of operational compliance. The image reflects effective technical training and the instructor’s responsibility to convey information accurately.
Should the instructor be fluent in the workers’ language?
Yes, unequivocally. NR 01 requires that training ensure full understanding of the content related to occupational risks, operational procedures, and applicable control measures. When the instructor does not master the workers’ language, technical communication loses precision, ambiguities arise, and the likelihood of misinterpretation increases. In critical standards such as NR 35, NR 10, NR 12, NR 18, NR 33, NR 37, and NR 06, this deficiency is not merely instructional but operational, as it directly affects guidance aimed at preventing serious and fatal accidents.
Reliance on a translator or intermediary compromises training dynamics, reduces technical interaction, and hinders effective verification of workers’ understanding. It also limits the instructor’s ability to correct unsafe behaviors in real time, clarify doubts specific to the actual work scenario, and properly assess practical assimilation of the content. For these reasons, audits, inspections, and post-incident investigations commonly regard training delivered without instructor fluency in the workers’ language as a significant weakness in the qualification process, with potential technical and legal implications for the organization.
NR training courses: what is the legal risk when a foreign worker does not understand the training content?
The legal risk is high and tangible. A lack of understanding by a foreign worker constitutes an objective failure in the training process, regardless of the formal existence of a certificate. NR 01 expressly requires not only that training be provided, but that understanding and competence compatible with the activity risks be demonstrated. If the worker does not understand the language in which the training is delivered, there is no assurance that procedures, operational limits, control measures, or emergency actions have been properly assimilated.
In the event of an accident, audits, inspections, and technical expert analyses assess whether the worker actually understood the instructions received. The Work Accident Report (CAT), under Law No. 8,213, Article 22, may identify inadequate training as a determining factor in the incident. This finding can lead to employer liability under Brazilian labor law (CLT) for failure to properly instruct workers and may extend to criminal liability, including under Article 132 of the Penal Code, when conscious exposure of the worker to direct and imminent danger is established. In short, training without effective comprehension does not protect the company; it creates a latent legal liability.
Considering that China has more than 300 dialects and linguistic variations, and that many foreign workers do not master technical Mandarin and have only basic English skills, is it legally acceptable to deliver NR training courses in English in Brazil? Does this comply with NR 01 regarding the requirement for effective understanding of the content?
No, it is not legally acceptable. NR 01 clearly establishes that training must ensure full understanding of the content and demonstration of competence compatible with the risks involved. Delivering NR training in a language that the worker does not technically master undermines the very concept of qualification, as it prevents real assimilation of operational procedures, control measures, safety limits, and emergency actions. In such cases, the training exists only on paper and lacks practical effectiveness.
In the event of an accident, audits, inspections, and technical expert analyses assess whether the worker actually understood the instructions provided. The Work Accident Report (CAT) may record the lack of comprehension as a determining factor, supporting employer liability under Brazilian labor law and, depending on the circumstances, under Article 132 of the Penal Code, when conscious exposure to danger is established. Therefore, the only technically and legally defensible approach is to provide training in the language effectively understood by the worker, validated by a legally qualified professional, ensuring traceability, real understanding, and regulatory compliance.
Click on the link: Criteria for Issuing Certificates according to the Standards
