Safety culture: how can we move from simply following rules to genuine team buy-in?

In many companies, safety is still approached primarily as a set of rules to comply with. Procedures are circulated, instructions are posted, safety briefings are organized, and mandatory PPE is regularly reiterated. Yet on the ground, deviations persist: instructions ignored, shortcuts taken “to go faster,” long-standing habits, resistance to certain new measures. The gap between prescribed work and real work can sometimes be considerable. This is where the notion of “safety culture” truly matters: it is no longer just about making rules known, but about achieving real, lasting buy-in to the idea that safety is an integral part of the job.

A strong safety culture is characterized by a few recurring traits. First, safety is regarded as a shared value, not merely an obligation. Employees at every level consider it normal to stop when a situation appears dangerous, to refuse work they judge too risky, and to report a near miss. They feel authorized to do so, without fearing retaliation or remarks such as “we don’t have time for that.” They also perceive that leadership takes these issues seriously—not only in words, but in decisions and trade-offs.

Moving from minimal compliance to genuine buy-in requires working on several dimensions simultaneously. The first is managerial role-modeling. It is unrealistic to expect operators to systematically wear PPE or follow a protocol if managers themselves take shortcuts, neglect certain rules, or do not hold themselves to the same standards. A manager who enters a workshop without a hard hat or safety glasses sends a very clear message: ultimately, this equipment is optional. Conversely, a manager who follows the rules rigorously, accepts being reminded of them, and explains the rationale behind them greatly helps legitimize the approach.

The second dimension is meaning. Many employees struggle to understand why a particular rule exists, especially if it makes their work harder or lengthens certain operations. When instructions are perceived as disconnected from reality, arbitrary, or driven only “by insurers” or “for the audit,” the temptation to bypass them is strong. It is therefore essential to take the time to explain where requirements come from: which (sometimes serious) accidents led to their creation; which specific risks they reduce; which alternatives were considered. Sharing feedback from incidents and concrete stories is often more compelling than an abstract reminder of regulations.

Team participation in designing or adapting rules also plays a decisive role. Imposing procedures designed far from the field, without testing them or discussing them with those who will apply them, is the best way to create rejection. Conversely, involving operators in analyzing real work situations, engaging them in searching for solutions, and testing different arrangements with them before rolling them out helps reconcile safety and efficiency. This co-construction does not mean every field request will be granted, but it often enables smart compromises that are easier to accept.

How deviations and incidents are handled is another indicator of safety culture. In an organization where every lapse is immediately punished without trying to understand the causes, employees quickly learn to stay silent. They hide near misses, downplay incidents, and avoid reporting difficulties. In a more mature culture, deliberate misconduct is distinguished from an error linked to poor anticipation, lack of training, or ambiguous instructions. The focus shifts to the “why” rather than only the “who,” root causes are analyzed, and the aim becomes improving the system rather than stigmatizing an individual.

Rituals also play a role in embedding a safety culture. Regular moments such as a “safety quarter-hour” at the start of a shift, managers’ site walkabouts, incident reviews with teams, and safety days or weeks help keep the topic alive. But these rituals must not become mere formality. A safety quarter-hour where someone reads a document with no discussion, a visit that is just box-ticking, or a “safety day” experienced as a one-off with no follow-up can even fuel cynicism. The challenge is to foster genuine dialogue where everyone can speak up, ask questions, and propose ideas.

Finally, recognizing safe behaviors is a frequently overlooked lever. Many companies are quick to point out what is wrong but forget to value what is done well. Highlighting a team that made the right call in a dangerous situation, publicly thanking an employee who reported a serious risk, or telling a story where a colleague’s vigilance prevented an accident are all concrete ways to show what is expected. The goal is not to hand out bonuses for every cautious act, but to create a climate where these behaviors are recognized as the norm, not as exceptions.

Building a safety culture is long-term work; it cannot be reduced to a one-off action plan. It is a gradual transformation that affects values, habits, and reflexes. Executives, HR, HSE teams, and frontline managers each have a role to play. But the payoff matches the effort: better protected teams, greater trust, fewer accidents, fewer hidden costs, and a company perceived—internally and externally—as a responsible employer.