Working with subsidiaries or contractors in countries with weak HSE regulation: how to maintain a high level of standards

When a company operates in countries where HSE regulation is less demanding—or less enforced—it faces a dangerous temptation: lowering standards in the name of “local realism.” In the short term, it may seem pragmatic. In the long term, it is a major risk: serious accidents, reputational crisis, loss of customers, internal tensions, and even legal liability depending on the context.

So the question is not “can we maintain high standards?” The question is “how can we do it intelligently, without imposing a disconnected model?”

Start with a simple truth: your responsibility doesn’t stop at the contract

Even if a contractor is legally “independent,” the human and reputational impact of an accident or a social drift reflects back on the contracting company. And beyond image, there is a hard reality: a fragile value chain threatens business continuity. HSE requirements are therefore a robustness tool.

The right strategy: scale expectations to risk, and secure major risks first

In these contexts, two symmetrical mistakes must be avoided. The first is demanding “everything, immediately”: it leads to fictitious documents and concealment. The second is demanding nothing: it leads to tragedies.

The most robust strategy is to first identify major risks and set non-negotiable requirements on those points. Typically: energy isolation and lockout/tagout, work at height, vehicles and traffic management, confined spaces, fire, chemicals, machinery, and critical work permits. On these topics, the contracting company must set clear standards, audit reality, and be able to stop work if the risk is too high.

For the rest, you build a realistic step-by-step improvement plan. The goal is to raise maturity, not to obtain instant compliance.

The operational key: contract + verification + support

In a low-regulation country, a contract is necessary but not sufficient. It sets rules, but it does not create capability. Verification is therefore essential: site visits, short audits focused on major risks, observation of practices, checks on certifications/authorizations, and comprehension tests. And support is often what makes the difference: joint training, sharing simple tools, lessons learned, and technical support for critical investments (machine guarding, ventilation, fire protection).

A demanding company is not the one that sanctions the most. It is the one that makes requirements feasible, while remaining firm on protecting life.

Don’t forget the human factor: culture, language, power dynamics, and cascading subcontracting

In some contexts, hierarchy, fear of losing one’s job, or a culture of “not contradicting” can prevent people from reporting hazards. If you apply a “Western” standard based on transparency without addressing this factor, you create a façade of prevention. You therefore need to adapt channels: trusted local focal points, the option for anonymous reporting, simple routines, and managers trained to listen.

And you must address cascading subcontracting: many failures come from tier-2 or tier-3 subcontractors, invisible in contracts. A high standard requires minimum visibility on who does what, under what supervision.

Conclusion

Maintaining a high HSE level in countries with weak regulation is not a matter of abstract morality. It is a strategy to protect life, strengthen robustness, and preserve credibility. You achieve it by combining three things: non-negotiables on major risks, field verification focused on reality, and support that builds evidence—not paperwork.