From Compliance to Commitment: Rethinking Workplace Safety in India

--

Why accountability, leadership ownership, and culture—not just regulation—will define India’s safety outcomes

India’s industrial accidents are not isolated operational failures—they are reflections of deeper gaps in accountability, culture, and leadership focus. As the country accelerates its manufacturing ambitions and positions itself as a global supply chain hub, one uncomfortable truth remains: workplace safety has not kept pace with industrial growth.

Every industrial accident in India seems to follow a predictable cycle—loss of lives, public outrage, official inquiries, and then a gradual fading of attention. Until the next incident brings the issue back into focus. This repetition is not coincidental. It reflects a systemic issue: safety continues to be treated as a procedural requirement rather than a foundational value of enterprise.

The data is sobering. Estimates suggest that 3–4 workers lose their lives every day in factories, with many more sustaining serious injuries. Over a recent five-year period, more than 6,500 workers have died in industrial accidents, averaging nearly three fatalities a day. These numbers likely understate the reality given the scale of informal, contract, and unreported employment across sectors.

Recent trends from 2024 to 2026 reinforce the gravity of the situation. In 2024 alone, over 400 workers were killed and more than 850 seriously injured across manufacturing, mining, and energy sectors. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries have been particularly vulnerable, with over 100 major accidents in a single year leading to more than 200 deaths. The trend has continued into 2025–26, with incidents such as a pharmaceutical plant explosion in Telangana claiming over 40 lives, alongside repeated accidents in fireworks units and small industrial clusters resulting in dozens of fatalities. These are not isolated aberrations—they are recurring patterns pointing to systemic weaknesses.

“When safety is treated as compliance, accidents become predictable—not preventable.”

India’s industrial history has already offered enough warnings. Catastrophic events in the past exposed the devastating consequences of weak safety systems, poor oversight, and lack of accountability. Yet, decades later, the underlying causes of accidents remain strikingly similar. This suggests that the issue is not the absence of knowledge, but the failure to institutionalise learning and embed safety into everyday operations.

A more uncomfortable reality lies in how accountability is structured within organisations—and, at times, deliberately diluted. Consider the experience of a senior professional who was invited to join the board of a reputed manufacturing company as an Independent Director. Within weeks of visiting two of its plants, he observed clear gaps in safety practices and working conditions. Shortly thereafter, he was asked to sign documents designating him as the “Occupier” for multiple units—a role that carries direct legal responsibility for safety compliance.

What made the situation untenable was that the company already had full-time executive directors managing operations. Yet, the legal accountability was being shifted to someone without operational control. It became evident that the intent was not governance, but convenience. He chose to resign. This is not an isolated episode. It reflects a broader tendency to treat safety accountability as a legal formality—something to be assigned, rather than owned.

This disconnect between responsibility and control lies at the heart of many industrial accidents. While India has a comprehensive legal framework governing workplace safety, a great deal depends on adherence and implementation. It is the duty and responsibility of every organisation to comply with safety requirements in both letter and spirit. However, proactive compliance remains limited. Too often, post-accident investigations reveal that establishments lacked basic safeguards, had not maintained equipment adequately, or were operating without valid licences. Human life, in such situations, appears to have been taken for granted.

There is also a behavioural dimension that cannot be ignored. The apathy of stakeholders—officials, employers, and even employees—towards basic safety requirements becomes visible only after a tragedy. This mirrors behaviour in everyday life, where wearing a seat belt or helmet is often conditional—followed only when enforcement is visible. Safety, therefore, becomes reactive, not intrinsic.

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 represents an important step toward addressing these structural gaps. One of its most significant contributions is the expansion of its scope beyond factories to cover a wide range of establishments, including offices and service-sector workplaces. This reflects a progressive recognition that safety is not confined to industrial shop floors but is relevant across the entire world of work.

Equally important is the clarity it brings to the definition of the “Occupier.” By linking this role to the individual who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, the Code addresses a long-standing gap that allowed responsibility to be assigned without authority. Independent Directors or individuals without operational control can no longer be designated merely as signatories to absorb liability. This alignment of accountability with decision-making power is critical for meaningful change.

Another notable feature is the emphasis on employee participation. The Code enables workers to formally raise safety concerns with employers and, where necessary, escalate these issues to designated authorities. This provision has the potential to transform safety from a top-down compliance exercise into a participative system where risks are identified early and addressed proactively. However, the effectiveness of such provisions will depend on awareness, accessibility, and the willingness of organisations to respond constructively.

“Safety is not a cost—it is a driver of productivity, trust, and long-term competitiveness.”

Global experience reinforces the importance of such an approach. Nearly 2.9 million workers die each year globally due to occupational causes, while hundreds of millions suffer injuries. Countries that have made meaningful progress in reducing accident rates have done so through a combination of strong enforcement, leadership accountability, worker participation, and a deeply embedded culture of safety. The lesson is clear—laws alone do not ensure safety; consistent implementation and leadership commitment do.

At a broader level, industrial safety is closely linked to economic performance. Safe workplaces lead to higher productivity, reduced downtime, better workforce morale, and improved retention of skilled labour. They enhance operational reliability and strengthen supply chains. Conversely, unsafe workplaces impose significant hidden costs—loss of human capital, increased healthcare burdens, production disruptions, and reputational risks for industry.

In an increasingly globalised environment, where investors and partners are placing greater emphasis on environmental, social, and governance standards, safety performance is no longer a peripheral concern. It is central to competitiveness. Organisations that fail to prioritise safety risk not only regulatory penalties but also long-term business sustainability.

India’s aspiration to become a global manufacturing hub cannot be built on unsafe foundations. The country has the legislative framework, institutional mechanisms, and accumulated experience to address this challenge. What is required now is a decisive shift in mindset—from compliance to commitment, from delegation to ownership.

Boards and top management must bring safety firmly into the governance agenda. Regular reviews, measurable indicators, and clear accountability structures must become standard practice. Safety cannot remain a line item in audits—it must become a core leadership priority.

Safety cannot be optional. It cannot be conditional. And it cannot be cosmetic. It must be owned—consistently, visibly, and at every level.

Trust us to get your leaders to be at their best!

Connect with us

Know your mentor