Safety, great idea! There is no doubt that we all want to be safe. This is a state we all desire to maintain by a natural law ingrained in each of us as a living being. Life can only continue if its course is not threatened to the point of being crushed, or rather while it maintains its ‘functional integrity’ – that is, the ability to perform the function that it was meant to carry out.

Paradoxically, life is about risk as well. Life is risk, and this is the condition required for growth. There is no guarantee of ultimate success for any action, project or endeavour. Whether performing a simple action such as to travelling from point A to B; or important choices such as choosing a career or partner; launching a new product in the marketplace; or launching a space shuttle with astronauts on board; incidents, mistakes or disasters are possibilities along the way.

In the context of industrial activities, there is no escape from the topic of safety, and the general consensus is that the purpose of safety is to protect businesses, properties, the environment and people. It is doubtful whether anyone would disagree with this statement. Conversely, we can find many reasons and causes for improper safety strategies, plans and management programmes when operating in the field.

The primary argument for evading certain aspects of safety has been that safety is an added cost, or that it is simply too expensive. Quite justifiably, safety for complex production facilities requires sophisticated equipment, competent personnel, and high proficiency in the design, development, operation and maintenance tasks. Also, safety has been perceived as an additional constraint on production. Limited flexibility, increased maintenance and various safety features are often considered as a limitation on productivity. Both capital investment and production decisions can sideline the argument for safety.

Significant progress has been made in reducing the constraints of safety measures on production. Safety instrumented systems (SIS) are increasingly more flexible and intelligent, and even communicate peer-to-peer or with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Equally, engineering, software application developments and integration tasks have been made easier thanks to technological progress. Even maintenance can now be performed online, with little or no impact on production. Performance, features and trust in the use of SIS have all steadily increased for an offering that has remained price competitive.

Despite such advances in the functionality and value of modern safety systems, one could still argue that this does not mean that the price is necessarily affordable. In answer to this concern, one could argue that businesses should consider measuring the return on their investment in terms of wider and longer term business objectives rather than short term profits, or consider the impact on market positioning to justify the extra cost.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) clearly expresses that ‘there is no statistical evidence that economies with lower occupational health and safety standards are more competitive’. In fact, research conducted by the ILO1 suggested that ‘the safest countries also have the best competitiveness ratings’. This research was conducted using the IMD, World Competitiveness Yearbook2 and the World Economic Forum data.

The current business response to safety management sounds very similar to the argument of quality versus competitiveness a few decades ago that was superseded in the 1990s when companies worked hard to achieve ISO9000 certification. This required companies to adopt a programmed approach to quality management and documentation to achieve certification and the credentials to do business by meeting expectation levels in marketplace. Whether adopting best practice simply as a licence to operate, or in a more genuine attempt to implement recognised best practice, the real benefits to the companies included cost savings, reduced product returns, improved efficiency and fewer disputes brought about by poor organisation.

The ILO research contradicts popular opinion that advanced safety practices diminish performance, but instead suggests that it constitutes competitive edge. Today, one could ask what it would take, and when good safety practice in plants will be perceived as a true market differentiator. There is a clear argument for companies to embrace best practice in safety, securing a long-term licence to operate and clear differentiation from the competition by exceeding the increasing expectations of society. v

Didier Turcinovic is president of Safety Users Group, Inc, a private initiative and was incorporated in California, USA, in 2000. Its mission is to build a trusted worldwide independent professional community with a focus on functional safety for the process industries. The community is open to all users of safety from end users to solution providers, manufacturers, consultancies, regulatory bodies and institutions. For more information, visit www.safetyusersgroup.com