It starts at the top: how leaders shape organisational safety

Organisational leadership is frequently praised as a cornerstone of safety culture. But beyond the rhetoric, what does effective leadership look like in practice? It’s one thing for executives to endorse a safety policy; it’s another for them to show through their decisions and behaviour that they are driving fewer injuries, stronger reporting cultures, and healthier workplaces.

To explore this gap, RAND Europe carried out a research pilot in collaboration with ISO Technical Committee 283 (which oversees international standards for OSH management), funded by the Global Safety Evidence Centre. Specifically, we carried out a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) examining how senior management contributes to OSH outcomes. The topic of the review was selected in partnership with members of the working group developing a new ISO standard on leadership and governance, and the findings will hopefully help inform its direction.

The senior leaders’ actions that shape OSH outcomes

The evidence identified by the REA was predominantly correlational, indicating associations rather than confirmed causal relationships. That said, the research identifies four critical domains through which senior leaders influence safety performance:

1. Strategic direction: Leaders who set clear safety policies, integrate safety into business strategy, and ensure alignment across management levels signal that safety is a priority. However, these commitments only improve outcomes when supported by middle management.
2. Visible leadership and engagement: When executives visit sites, join safety meetings, and communicate directly with staff, they reinforce the importance of safety and build trust, provided their engagement is genuine and followed by action.
3. Systematic oversight: Mandating training, monitoring safety indicators, and rewarding safe behaviour show that safety is a strategic concern. But lasting change requires persistent and authentic leadership, not just oversight.
4. Cultural leadership and adaptability: Leaders shape safety culture through their actions and responses to change. Fostering a ‘just culture’, where employees can report issues without fear, takes time and consistent effort; short-term policy shifts are not enough.

What drives senior leaders to prioritise safety?

Leaders’ motivations for supporting OSH come from a mix of financial, personal, and external factors and the evidence shows both positive and problematic effects.

• Financial incentives can backfire: Tying CEO bonuses to lower injury rates may reduce reporting rather than incidents. Incentives focused on long-term wellness, such as pensions or deferred pay, are more likely to support better safety outcomes.
• Reputation and external pressures: A strong safety record improves corporate legitimacy and reduces regulatory and reputational risks, but motivation driven by benchmarks often fades once targets are met.
• Personal factors: Risk-averse, prevention-focused, and ethical leaders tend to achieve better safety outcomes, while overconfident or short-term leaders see more injuries. Effective safety leadership relies on values and incentives that promote long-term vigilance rather than quick wins.

Beyond title: the types of leaders that make a difference

A leader’s background and personality influence workplace safety. Research shows that safety performance is not only a matter of policy but also a reflection of who leads and how they lead.

• Demographics: Most senior leaders are men in their 40s and 50s, but age and gender show little direct link to safety outcomes. Some evidence suggests that diverse boards, however, achieve better OSH results, when directors from a variety of demographics and backgrounds hold real influence within the organisation.
• Organisational context: Companies led by founders or owner-CEOs have more injuries than those with appointed executives, highlighting the value of formal governance and accountability. Longer CEO tenure may also support safer workplaces.
• Leadership profiles: Leaders’ values and style matter most. Ethical, prevention-focused, and attentive leaders foster safer cultures, while overconfident leaders or those focused on short-term gains see more accidents. Generalist CEOs and those with long-term financial stakes act more cautiously. Traits like integrity, empathy, and vigilance support safety, while production-first mindsets undermine it.

Conclusion

This research highlights a range of ways in which senior leaders influence safety, as well as the actions, motivations, and roles that appear most effective. More broadly, this pilot demonstrates the value of explicitly reviewing relevant evidence as part of the process of drafting standards, and it lays the groundwork for using evidence to strengthen global standards more generally.