A recent EY survey found that 60 % of British companies cite rising and volatile energy costs as a major drag on growth. UK industrial prices sit roughly 46 % above the IEA average and consequently many high‑hazard sites face sharply higher utility bills. At the same time, an ageing workforce is retiring in waves: a February 2025 report from Lanes Group warned that the impending exodus of seasoned process‑safety and chemical‑engineering professionals will widen skill gaps, while a concurrent industry study in manufacturing flagged a “workforce crisis” as experienced workers depart and fewer join the ranks.
Relationship between process safety leadership and performance
Before COVID‑19, visible process‑safety leadership was a cornerstone of high‑hazard governance. HSE’s 2025 “Process Safety Leadership in the UKCS” review, based on inspections of North Sea operators between January 2022 and October 2024, found that sites demonstrating active board‑level engagement and clear leadership structures had markedly fewer compliance failures than peers where leadership was less evident. Yet today, leadership development often takes a back seat to operations, even though robust leadership remains the strongest predictor of process‑safety performance.
With falling regulator numbers
Meanwhile, the regulator itself is under-resourced. HSE’s frontline inspector numbers fell by roughly 25 % between 2010 and 2016. The Health & Safety Executive’s unannounced inspections have fallen by roughly a third—from more than 11,300 in 2013–14 to just 7,647 in 2022–23. These cuts have intensified HSE’s strategic pivot toward risk‑based targeting, but they also mean the regulator can no longer engage every high‑hazard site as comprehensively as before, given enforcement notices remain stubbornly high at over 8,000 per year, there is work for leaders to do.
HSE has published extensive guidance aimed at high‑hazard operators. Its COMAH guidance portal lists key documents including technical measures delivery guides that outline expectations around safety‑case management, control systems, and leadership principles.
Taking ownership of the process safety agenda
With authority and manpower constrained, the onus now falls on companies to manage their own compliance and embed recognised good practice. COMAH Regulations explicitly require every upper‑tier operator’s Major Accident Prevention Policy to address “monitoring, audit and review” of safety‑management systems, ensuring that written policies translate into effective controls. Discipline‑specific guidance further demands systematic auditing of safety‑instrumented systems, management of change procedures, and emergency‑response readiness, underscoring that thorough assurance processes are non‑negotiable.
Revitalising process‑safety leadership under these constraints will hinge on three imperatives.
- Firstly, companies must invest in talent retention and leadership development to rebuild the expertise pipeline.
- Secondly, boards must institute clear governance frameworks that hold senior teams accountable for safety KPIs.
- Thirdly, operators need structured assurance programmes to confirm that site behaviour meets company standards and good practice.
Proactive assurance is crucial
Only by prioritising these assurance processes can high‑hazard operators internalise compliance, reduce reliance on a stretched regulator, and reinforce the vital link between leadership and process‑safety excellence.
OpenPSM provides a structured, digital assurance process, rooted in best practice guidance. The standard protocol covers 20 elements with over 840 questions to consider, built around plan, do, check and act, ensuring a focus on continuous improvement.
Questions cannot be edited as they are rooted in guidance but can be added to suit individual users needs and once added they will be automatically incorporated into PSMS reviews and audits and maturity determinations.
For more information, click here