Maintaining Management Engagement in HSE Issues Amid External Challenges and Uncertainty at NLMK Group

Leadership in an Era of Turbulence: Why Safety Must Not Fall Off the Radar

In the face of external challenges, economic downturns, and constant changes, the focus of executives inevitably shifts. Sanctions, disrupted supply chains, the need for urgent import substitution, and strict resource optimization all create immense pressure on businesses. In such a situation, Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) issues risk taking a back seat. In his presentation, Pavel Zakharov, HSE Director of NLMK Group, analyzes in detail how to maintain the engagement of managers at all levels in safety issues when production operates under constant stress.

The speaker emphasizes that managing a business today is akin to flying through turbulence. And it is precisely under these conditions that the role of the top executive is critically important, setting priorities and not allowing the team to lose focus on the main goal — zero injuries.

The Broken Windows Theory in Production

One of the key concepts the speaker illustrates using production culture as an example is the application of the "broken windows theory" to safety issues. If a manager (at any level) walks past violations — whether it's working at height without a harness or trash left in an aisle — they send a signal to the team: "this doesn't matter." Such tacit consent forms a culture of disregarding the rules.

Leadership development is aimed precisely at ensuring that managers do not walk past. An engaged leader notices "broken windows" and reacts to them, demonstrating by personal example that safety is not a formality, but a basic condition of work.

Engagement Tools: From Top Management to Line Managers

The presentation details a comprehensive approach to leadership development at different levels of management. A survey of the professional community showed that most companies have successfully implemented tools for middle managers (committees, line walk-throughs), but often overlook top management and line personnel.

For senior management, NLMK applies a project-based approach: top managers take on the sponsorship of specific projects to reduce fatal risks (e.g., working at height). This is not just a formal appointment — the sponsor personally visits the sites, defends the budget at the board level, and bears responsibility for the project's implementation. This approach radically changes attitudes: top managers begin to initiate projects themselves and request expertise from the HSE function.

To support managers under stress, the company is implementing Wellbeing programs and mentoring for top executives. This helps to find balance, reduce stress levels, and increase personal resilience, which directly affects the quality of management decisions in the field of safety.

Proactive KPIs and Disciplinary Responsibility

Special attention is paid to motivation. At NLMK, the injury reduction indicator (LTIFR) is included in the KPIs only for the company president and the HSE director. For other top managers, proactive indicators are set — for example, the implementation of a specific risk reduction program. If an incident related to this risk occurs, the project sponsor bears responsibility, not just the safety department.

At the same time, the speaker notes the importance of balancing culture development and discipline. In cases of blatant disregard for the rules, when a manager consciously allows violations of fatal risks, the application of disciplinary measures is necessary. Punishment in this case is considered a last resort to save a worker's life.

What You Will Learn from This Webinar:

• How to keep top management focused on safety issues amidst crises and budget optimization?
• Why is top management sponsorship of fatal risks more effective than standard injury KPIs?
• How to apply the "broken windows theory" to diagnose and change the safety culture at an enterprise?
• What support tools (Wellbeing, mentoring) help managers cope with stress and make safe decisions?
• Where is the boundary between developing awareness and the need for strict disciplinary measures?