Safety is now a strategic imperative for high-risk industries. Dr SP Garg, Former Executive Director, GAIL (India) Ltd, shares insights with ENERGDIVE on safety culture, AI-led risk management and evolving energy-sector risks.
There are two important factors: first is the safety culture in the organisation, and second is the role of leadership within the overall framework of the safety management system. When we talk about safety culture in an organisation, it starts with leadership. Leaders set expectations, demonstrate leadership through their behaviour, and lead by example: ‘Walk the talk’.
On a daily basis, people are able to see that leaders are actively involved in safety activities. There are many leaders who, in fact, say that safety is their topmost concern. Business will continue, operations will happen, and maintenance will take place, but if a major accident or incident occurs, everything is lost. This realisation comes from leadership.
Once a strong organisational safety culture is developed, all these aspects are taken care of. For that, leadership commitment must be present. Employee engagement must also be ensured. In addition, there needs to be a robust safety management system in place, supported by IT-enabled processes. Finally, behavioural interventions are required to complement this entire framework.
Having a well-defined framework, not only in terms of policy but also in terms of policy implementation through a safety management system, ensures that it is translated effectively across all levels of the organisation. If this is in place, a safe working area and environment are created. People develop a strong sense of risk perception.
Yeah, this is quite difficult; it is not that easy. Let me share an example from my own experience. In 2013, when I was heading Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) at GAIL, we had close to 30 different installations and a vast network of pipelines in the hydrocarbon sector, including natural gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) pipelines. We also had six LPG recovery plants and a gas-based petrochemical plant. However, we realised that despite having what we believed to be the best people, technology and processes, incidents and accidents were still occurring from time to time. Management was concerned about what was going wrong.
So, we decided to bring in an external expert and have a detailed discussion with the top management, including the Chairman and the Board of Directors. We conducted a two-hour closed-door session with them, followed by a four-hour discussion with the next level of executive directors. The objective was to identify the gaps.
It was quickly concluded that there was a gap in behavioural intervention. People were not always behaving safely at the workplace and displaying at-risk behaviour. Based on this feedback, it was decided to conduct a survey across various GAIL installations.
The survey revealed that around 65 percent safe behaviour was already being demonstrated. Clearly, this needed to be addressed. Management immediately approved the initiative, but it was understood that this would not be a quick fix. Behavioural change takes time. People are conditioned over years — their attitudes, values and behaviours are deeply ingrained. It requires multiple interventions, patience, resilience and a structured approach.
We implemented these interventions across different installations over a period of about three years. When we conducted the survey again after three years, we found that safe behaviour had increased to around 90 percent.
This was a significant improvement, but the real challenge was sustaining that level. The impact, however, was remarkable. For the next three consecutive years, there were no reportable incidents across GAIL operations nationwide. We also crossed 100 million safe man-hours, an achievement that had occurred only once in GAIL’s history, and that too immediately after implementing this behaviour-based intervention.
I am also happy to share that the Indian Institute of Management, Indore, developed a case study on this transformation — how human behaviour was improved through Behaviour-based Safety (BBS). The case study was published by Ivey Publishing, and is now taught at major management institutions around the world, including MDI Gurgaon.
These are relatively recent developments, but the positive aspect is that the government is now placing significant emphasis on them. It is becoming a priority for organisations to align their functions with AI and predictive analytics so that operations become smarter.
Traditionally, organisations implement technological interventions in operations and maintenance, but often overlook safety functions. One of the key challenges, therefore, is developing the right mindset within the organisation — where technological advancements are adopted holistically across all functions. Only then can the full benefits be realised.
If organisations assume that safety functions can be left out of this transformation, they are mistaken. Today, AI can be used to identify, for instance, individuals in a petrochemical plant or refinery who are not wearing PPE. There is no longer a need for manual monitoring — AI systems can instantly detect and flag such non-compliance.
This is one of the simplest examples. With such technologies, extensive analysis can be carried out, enabling organisations to define their safety strategy and direction over the next few years.
While the transition will be challenging, it will also be highly productive. However, it must be inclusive — all functions within the organisation need to be aligned and integrated into this transformation.
Hydrogen and LNG bring a new set of challenges. Hydrogen, in particular, has one of the widest flammability ranges. If you look at it, the flammability range of hydrogen is roughly 4 percent to 75 percent. This means that even if 4 percent hydrogen is mixed with 96 percent air, it can form an explosive mixture. This is one of the widest flammability ranges among gases, making hydrogen highly inflammable and capable of igniting very easily if leaked. Therefore, it introduces new risks, especially in pipeline transportation and handling.
Similarly, LNG also presents its own set of challenges. Transporting LNG through refrigerated tankers or vessels across countries adds complexity. In India, more than 50 percent of natural gas demand is met through LNG imports via sea routes, which further increases exposure to such risks.
This is where safety governance becomes critical. As new risks emerge, organisations must continuously identify, monitor and manage them. Even a single overlooked risk can disrupt entire operations.
I recall an example of one of the early LNG plants, where LNG was imported and then regasified into Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). This plant was developed by GAIL in Bhubaneswar. At that time, there were limited specific guidelines available for such infrastructure, which created challenges in design and execution.
Due to external pressures, certain shortcuts were taken during implementation. When I visited the site, I questioned why certain safety practices had not been followed. The response was that there were no specific guidelines. However, my view was that in the absence of LNG-specific standards, existing LPG guidelines — which address comparatively lower risks — should at least have been followed. For instance, if a panel is required to be installed outside the bund wall of a storage tank, placing it inside increases risk unnecessarily. These are fundamental safety considerations.
Another example relates to LNG transfer operations. If a tanker’s capacity is larger than the storage capacity, unloading should be done in phases. Keeping the tanker continuously connected while waiting for regasification creates additional and avoidable risks. Instead, it is safer to transfer part of the liquid, disconnect, and then return later to complete the process. This illustrates how risk awareness and governance must evolve as operations become more complex and risk-intensive.
Yes, this is a common mistake. Sometimes organisations focus only on the number of incidents or accidents that have occurred. They should also focus on leading indicators rather than lagging indicators. Leading indicators can include several aspects, such as the number of safety audits conducted, unsafe acts or unsafe conditions identified and corrected, near-miss incidents reported, and the amount of on-the-job training provided to employees.
Once these indicators are tracked, the likelihood of incidents and accidents is significantly reduced. Therefore, it is essential for organisations to define relevant leading indicators based on their specific operations. These should be monitored consistently, with clear targets in place.
Targets can even be set at an individual level. For instance, each employee could be required to report at least one or two near-miss incidents per month. This itself becomes a leading indicator. It is often said that behind one major incident, there are approximately 300 to 600 near-miss incidents. If these near misses are identified and addressed in time, serious incidents and injuries can be prevented. Therefore, organisations must focus on capturing and analysing near misses. By doing so, they can significantly reduce the occurrence of serious incidents. Organisations must prioritise them and avoid relying solely on incident data, as focusing only on past incidents does not guarantee future safety.
-0-
