A manufacturing company was relying on standard gloves to outfit their multiple locations and applications. But what seemed like a cost-effective solution quickly revealed gaps in durability, protection, and consistency across sites – and a growing number of hand injuries tied to inadequate protection. When a corporate safety manager launched a large-scale trial with several PPE manufacturers, the results challenged everything they thought they knew about their PPE program.
The problem: Low-cost gloves creating high-cost issues
A manufacturing company in central Pennsylvania appeared to have efficient operations on paper. Roughly 300 employees were equipped with standard Level A2 cut-resistant knit gloves that were selected through a vendor recommendation – not a full hazard assessment.
But on closer inspection, costs were on the rise. Employees were averaging two to three pairs of safety gloves a week, totaling more than 31,000 pairs annually and driving approximately $125,000 in spend. With gloves lasting just three-to-four days and failing to address jobsite hazards, teams relied heavily on backup gloves for specific tasks – adding another $35,000 in miscellaneous spend.
In addition to rising costs, safety performance was a growing concern. The company was averaging approximately 40 recordable hand injuries per year across its 300-person workforce – far above what is typically expected in private industry.
These incidents included both cut and impact-related injuries, many of which were tied to gloves that met minimum requirements but failed to provide protection in real-world conditions.
Altogether, this created a glove program that was:
- Driving over $155,000 in annual glove spend
- Managing multiple SKUs across departments
- Delivering inconsistent protection at the point of use
The consulting corporate safety manager knew something had to change.
The trial: Multiple manufacturers, one clear direction
To identify a better solution, a three-month glove evaluation was conducted across the sites.
More than 300 glove options from several leading PPE manufacturers, including HexArmor®, MCR Safety, PIP, Magid, and Ergodyne, were tested side by side with employees providing direct feedback based on:
- Durability
- Comfort
- Dexterity
- Overall performance
To ensure a fair trial, pricing was removed from the process entirely – ensuring the workers were basing their opinions on true real-world performance and not perceived price observations.
The outcome was clear. More than 90% of employees favored HexArmor® gloves, with the Helix® 3013, 3013IMP, 3014, 3014IMP, and 3051 consistently ranking at the top.
One employee described the Helix® 3051 as “the most comfortable glove they had worn in their entire life” -- reinforcing the role comfort and fit played in driving adoption across the workforce.
The results: Lower cost, fewer gloves, and protection that performs
Following the implementation of the Helix® 3013, 3013IMP, 3014, 3014IMP, and 3051, the impact was measurable across every level of the program.
Annual glove usage dropped from approximately 31,200 pairs to 7,800 – a 75% reduction in glove waste. Instead of replacing gloves multiple times per week, employees could rely on a single pair for nearly a month, dramatically reducing consumption while maintaining protection.
Even at a higher unit cost, total spend on primary gloves decreased by roughly $62,400, resulting in more than $60,000 in direct savings on primary gloves alone.
With the improved performance across applications, the company was also able to eliminate most of the additional $35,000 in miscellaneous glove spend – bringing total annual savings to over $92,000.
In addition to cost savings, the impact on safety outcomes were significant. Following the transition to HexArmor®, recordable hand injuries dropped from approximately 40 per year to 3.
That’s a 93% reduction in recordable injuries.
This dramatic reduction reflected not just improved durability, but a shift toward PPE that was better aligned to real jobsite hazards, including both cut and impact protection.
What began as a cost-saving initiative ultimately transformed the company’s approach to worker safety.
Beyond cost reduction, the transition delivered:
- Fewer SKUs and simplified inventory management
- Improved consistency across sites
- Increased employee acceptance and compliance
- Decreased injuries
Post-trial performance: A real-world difference in injury prevention
The performance gap became even clearer in the field.
Prior to the glove trials, an employee suffered a hand crushing injury requiring stitches after being caught between two heavy objects.
During the glove evaluation process, that same employee experienced a nearly identical incident while wearing the HexArmor® 3014IMP. This time, the glove absorbed the impact, resulting in only a minor surface mark, with no treatment required and no recordable injury.
It was a direct comparison that highlighted the difference between minimum-compliance PPE and protection designed for the job.
Download PDF
Don’t forget to share this post!