RSSB publishes new Good Practice Guidance on Safety Culture and Behavioural Development for the GB Rail Industry

Over the past few decades different approaches have been applied to improve safety culture. Broadly speaking these fall into two artificially divided camps. Firstly, Cultural approaches – these typically involve the... [ view full abstract ]

Over the past few decades different approaches have been applied to improve safety culture. Broadly speaking these fall into two artificially divided camps. Firstly, Cultural approaches – these typically involve the assessment of employee attitudes and perceptions towards safety and safety management to identify strengths and weaknesses at the organisational or site level. The findings enable the identification of improvement plans. Secondly, Behavioural approaches - whilst behaviour is considered in Cultural Approaches, Behavioural Approaches focus on the immediate causes of accidents and incidents. They apply the principles of behavioural analysis to identify and modify specific safe/unsafe behaviour.

While there is strong evidence that where safety systems are functioning effectively, cultural and behavioural interventions can achieve significant cost, safety and performance benefits, each approach used in isolation has limitations. For instance, many rail companies following the Cultural approach have taken the first steps to understand ‘where they are now’ using safety climate assessment tools to measure staff attitudes, values and perceptions towards safety and safety management. Such tools are primarily diagnostic and many duty holders have difficulty in using the results to take action to improve safety.

Where the Behavioural approach is implemented, most behavioural safety programmes are targeted at frontline safety behaviours, rather than underlying organisational weaknesses. The techniques could however be extended to promote critical leadership, management and risk control behaviours. Behavioural approaches can also fail if an organisation is not mature enough. Neither approach describes the desired behaviours required at all levels of an organisation to foster a strong safety culture, how such behaviours mutually support and reinforce each other, nor lend themselves to safety management systems integration. The current thinking is that a hybrid of both is most effective in bringing sustained safety culture improvements.

Although there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to safety culture development, there are common principles (values) that underpin continuous improvement and that apply across all duty holder organisations. These are presented in RSSB’s new guidance in the form of a framework of positive, inter-dependent behaviours at three generic levels (representing people performing different roles for safety) that is consistent with, and reinforces, the values of a strong safety culture. It is intended as a starting point to enable flexible application within individual organisations.

A step-by-step guide to the safety culture improvement process is also provided. This includes questions and points to consider in developing and implementing Culture and Behaviour Change, along with tools and interventions at each stage to help companies continue to move forward. It draws on the basics of change management and the key components of clear direction and leadership, capability, vehicles and support.

The importance of aligning organisational values and workforce capability and performance is illustrated. Through the provision of a common language and structured approach it is hoped the guidance will provide the basis for robust and well considered plans for embedding change of this nature across the rail industry.