Unveiling the Toxic Safety Culture: Indicators That Echo Across Borders

#255

Dr Robert Long, Australia; who is pioneer on Social Psycology of Risk & Safety.

This Dr Long’s Safety blog post lead me to think and share my experience, almost similar!!

In my 12 years as an Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) consultant in India, I’ve encountered workplace patterns that resonate with the insights of safety experts like Dr. Robert Long, an Australian veteran known for blending psychological safety and social psychology into risk management. Too often, organisations hire consultants expecting us to magically resolve deep-seated issues like a toxic safety culture. Yet, as I’ve observed—and as thought leaders in this space often point out—many companies seek solutions at the same level where problems originate, relying on repetitive initiatives, slogans, and grand promises, without stepping back for a holistic view. This blog explores key indicators of a toxic safety culture, drawing from my experiences in India and reflecting challenges that seem universal, cutting across industries and nations.

What is a Toxic Safety Culture?

A toxic safety culture isn’t just about missing safety protocols—it’s a systemic breakdown where organisational behaviours, values, and practices undermine safety and well-being. Experts in safety psychology argue that such cultures thrive when employees can’t speak freely, and dynamics like power imbalances or unaccountability take root. In my consulting journey, I’ve seen this play out in Indian workplaces where safety becomes a compliance ritual rather than a core value.

Key Indicators of a Toxic Safety Culture

Here are the standout signs I’ve identified over the years, echoing broader concerns in the safety field:

1. Lack of Transparency
   Transparency is crucial for any safety culture, yet many organisations hide incidents or data to maintain an illusion of control. In a Gujarat manufacturing unit, a near-miss with a conveyor belt was hushed up to “keep morale high.” Workers remained in the dark, and no improvements followed. This opacity breeds distrust, a point safety thought leaders often highlight.
2. High Power Distance
   In India’s often hierarchical workplaces, the gap between leaders and workers can silence critical feedback. At a Maharashtra steel plant, shop floor staff hesitated to flag unsafe machinery, fearing management wouldn’t care. This power distance—a widely recognised barrier—stifles open dialogue and weakens safety efforts.
3. Limited Empowerment and Involvement
   Excluding employees from decision-making is a glaring red flag. In a Tamil Nadu chemical factory, safety procedures were drafted by outsiders without worker input, rendering them impractical and ignored. Safety experts stress that empowering employees fosters ownership, yet this is frequently overlooked.
4. Absence of Accountability
   When accountability falters, blame often shifts downward. In a construction project, a supervisor pinned an accident on workers, dodging scrutiny of inadequate training. This misdirection—a common critique in safety discourse—fuels resentment and disengagement.
5. Focus on Symptoms, Not Root Causes
   Many organisations treat safety like a quick fix, targeting symptoms without digging deeper. A Punjab textile mill tackled absenteeism as “laziness,” ignoring poor ventilation and fatigue. Safety thinkers warn that this shortsightedness perpetuates issues, masking the real drivers.
6. Obsession with Zero Harm
   The “Zero Harm” goal, championed by some big-name consultancies, can distort reality. In a Karnataka refinery, pressure to show zero incidents led to underreporting, not improvement. Critics in the field argue this creates a superficial safety veneer while problems simmer beneath.
7. Disengaged Workforce
   Low motivation and absenteeism signal deeper trouble. In a Hyderabad pharma plant, workers skipped safety drills, feeling their suggestions were pointless. This disengagement often ties back to a culture where voices aren’t valued—a recurring theme in safety psychology.

Case Examples: A Mirror to Reality

• The Consultancy Trap: A large Indian PSU enlisted a globally hyped consultancy for a safety overhaul. The outcome? Slick campaigns and metrics that faded once the consultants left, with no real drop in incidents—just in reporting. This echoes warnings about fleeting, surface-level interventions.
• The Silent Shop Floor: In an auto parts factory, fear of reprisal kept workers quiet about hazards. A machine malfunction injured someone, yet “human error” took the blame over systemic flaws—a textbook sign of cultural toxicity.

The Global Echo

What’s striking is how these indicators transcend borders. My observations in India align with challenges safety experts note worldwide—whether in Australia, India, or beyond. Organisations chase the prestige of big-name consultants, throwing resources at quick fixes, only to see no lasting change. The obsession with metrics like Zero Harm often sweeps issues under the rug, leaving operational excellence—balancing safety, efficiency, and employee well-being—out of reach.

Conclusion

A toxic safety culture, marked by opacity, power gaps, and a symptom-only focus, is a pervasive challenge. My 12 years in India’s EHS landscape reveal a struggle that’s not unique but shared globally. Companies must move beyond viewing consultants as miracle workers and commit to introspection, employee involvement, and tackling root causes. Safety isn’t a slogan—it’s a sustained effort.

So Folks, what’s your take—have you seen these signs in your own workplace?

Karthik

10th March 2025

12Noon.