How do you think the safety culture in domestic companies differs from that in foreign ones? And is there any difference at all?
I would like to share my thoughts on the approaches of Russian industrial companies to occupational safety culture compared to safety culture in foreign companies.
Over the past five years, we have often heard about the need to develop a safety culture among employees, conduct various training sessions, pay more attention to risk assessment, implement corporate "Vision Zero" programs, and so on.
Of course, all these measures are important and must be developed and implemented. However, the main problem in developing a safety culture and the attitude towards it among top executives of large companies is the low value placed on human life. At the state level, the value of a human life in occupational settings is only 2,000,000 rubles.
In Russian companies, the attitude of top management towards ensuring safety and developing a safety culture is mostly formal: "we have to do it because the law requires it" and because there are various types of liability for non-compliance with HSE requirements and for allowing accidents of varying severity.
Naturally, it is wrong to paint all managers with the same brush — there is a small percentage of those who are truly committed to the idea of safety and lead by personal example, instilling a safety culture among their subordinates. What prevents Russian companies from achieving zero injuries (minor and severe accidents) is precisely their approach to safety issues. As long as the company's top management sets the LTIFR target not at 0, but higher — for example, 0.45 or even more — thereby programming themselves and their employees to believe that 4 – 6 severe accidents per year is the "norm," achieving true zero injuries is impossible. They will be stuck in a rut, constantly busy investigating accidents.
It is frightening that for some large industrial companies, losing 4 – 5 people at work per year is considered the norm. With such an approach and such horrifying goals, achieving a zero injury rate will be impossible.
Then a logical question arises: how can we change the attitude of top management at industrial enterprises towards safety issues? I think that when setting the next acceptable LTIFR targets above zero, one should ask the question: "How would you react if someone from your family or close friends were among the people you are willing to lose at your facilities during the year?" After such questions, people often change their minds and start thinking differently, responding that the injury frequency rate must be at absolute zero.
Why do people have such a strong sense of indifference? The answer is simple: indifference persists as long as it does not affect the person directly. As soon as they start projecting a negative outcome onto themselves or their loved ones, their attitude changes immediately. So why do we have to convey everything to managers and top executives through the prism of fear? It is much easier to initially prioritize the preservation of personnel's life and health as the company's highest goal.
Now I will describe how employees and top management in foreign companies approach safety and the preservation of human life and health. At one time, I had the opportunity to work with companies from Italy, Turkey, and the UK, and I observed the actions of their managers and employees with my own eyes. The most important difference between foreign and Russian companies in terms of ensuring safety is that they put human life first, not profit. For them, a person is more valuable and precious than the manufactured products and equipment.
They pay great attention to personnel development, design technical safety systems, create working conditions that simply do not allow for injuries, and instill a culture of safe work. Every employee can speak up or stop work if there are unsafe acts by colleagues or unsafe conditions. This is considered the norm — they are thanked for this, not punished.
For them, everyone is equal when it comes to safety: it does not matter whether it is a top-level executive or an ordinary employee.
Conclusion: As long as we set a target for the number of employees who can be "lost" per year and consider this an acceptable norm, we will never achieve a zero injury rate. We need to radically change the approach to valuing human life in the working conditions of industrial and any other enterprises.
Ultimately, what is more valuable to you: human life or the company's financial profit?