Introduction
Every workplace strives to improve efficiency. Finding smarter, faster ways of working can increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve overall performance. However, when efficiency is pursued without proper oversight, it can gradually become something far more dangerous, like cutting corners.
The shortcuts that employees take are rarely dramatic. In many cases, they seem insignificant at the time. Safety procedures exist for a reason, and even slight deviations can have serious consequences, particularly in environments where explosive atmospheres, combustible dusts, or hazardous substances are present.
Routine plays an essential role in managing high-risk activities. However, familiarity can also be a hidden danger. As people become comfortable with a task, they often become less aware of the risks associated with it. Over time, hazards can become normalised, procedures may be overlooked, and unsafe practices can become accepted as “the way we’ve always done it.”
The result is unnecessary exposure to risk that can threaten employees, assets, operations, and business continuity.
Understanding Risk-Taking Behaviour
People rarely ignore safety procedures with the intention of causing harm. More often, unsafe behaviours develop gradually due to psychological, social, and organisational influences.
Age, Experience and Social Influence:
Younger workers, particularly those aged between 19 and 29, are generally more willing to take risks than older colleagues. This tendency can be amplified when they are encouraged by more experienced team members who appear to have completed the same tasks safely for years.
Social expectations can also play a role. Some workers may feel pressure to demonstrate confidence, capability, or toughness by taking risks that they believe more experienced colleagues would take.
Familiarity and Complacency:
Repetition creates familiarity, and familiarity can quickly turn into complacency.
When a task is carried out repeatedly without incident, workers can begin to assume that the risks involved are minimal. Hazards that were once obvious become background noise, and shortcuts start to feel justified because “nothing bad has happened before.”
This can lead to a dangerous reduction in risk awareness. Workers may begin skipping steps, overlooking controls, or modifying procedures in ways that save time without considering the increase of risk.
The Normalisation of Deviance:
One of the most widely recognised concepts in safety management is the normalisation of deviance: the gradual acceptance of unsafe practices because they have not yet resulted in an incident.
The process often follows a predictable pattern:
- A safety procedure is skipped or modified.
- No incident occurs.
- The behaviour is repeated.
- Others begin copying the behaviour.
- The unsafe practice becomes accepted as normal.
Over time, what was once considered unacceptable becomes standard practice.
Pressure and Productivity Targets:
Workplace pressure is another major contributor to unsafe behaviour.
When teams face tight deadlines, production targets, or performance incentives, speed can begin to take priority over safety. Employees may feel pressure from management, colleagues, or even themselves to complete tasks more quickly.
In these circumstances, shortcuts are often viewed as harmless productivity improvements rather than unnecessary risks.
Workplace Culture:
Perhaps the most significant factor is organisational culture.
If safety is not visibly prioritised throughout a business, employees are more likely to bypass procedures, ignore hazards, or accept unsafe practices. A culture built around “we’ve always done it this way” can make it extremely difficult to challenge risky behaviours.
This not only increases the likelihood of incidents but also ensures that unsafe practices are passed on to new employees, further embedding risk into the organisation’s day-to-day operations.
Why This Becomes a Serious Safety Problem
The absence of incidents does not mean the absence of risk.
Many major workplace accidents occur only after years of seemingly successful operation. During that time, teams can develop a false sense of security, believing that because nothing has gone wrong, nothing will go wrong.
In reality, a single overlooked hazard can have catastrophic consequences.
Examples include:
- Ignoring maintenance requirements because equipment “still works fine”, resulting in unsuitable equipment being used in hazardous areas.
- Poor housekeeping because an area appears “clean enough”, leading to dangerous accumulations of combustible dust.
- Failing to recognise ignition sources because they have become familiar or are not immediately obvious, particularly non-electrical ignition sources.
In environments where combustible dusts, flammable gases, vapours, or liquids are present, these seemingly minor oversights can combine to create the conditions for a devastating fire or explosion.
The consequences can include serious injury or loss of life, operational disruption, regulatory enforcement action, substantial fines, and long-term reputational damage.
How This Relates to DSEAR Assessments
The UK’s Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) require employers to identify, assess, and control risks associated with dangerous substances that could cause fires, explosions, or similar incidents.
A DSEAR assessment is designed to identify potential hazards and provide a prioritised plan for reducing or eliminating risk.
However, familiarity can undermine even the best safety systems.
When employees have worked in the same environment for long periods, they may stop recognising hazards that have gradually developed over time. Small process changes can become accepted without a full understanding of their impact on risk, while long-standing unsafe practices may become embedded within daily operations.
This is not a reflection of competence. It is simply a natural consequence of human behaviour.
Should DSEAR Assessments Be Conducted In-House?
If the question is can your DSEAR assessment be conducted in-house, then technically the answer is yes. If, however, the question is should your DSEAR assessment be conducted in-house, the answer is not so simple.
The DSEAR regulations require assessments to be carried out by a competent person with sufficient knowledge of the processes, substances, and equipment involved. In some cases, that person may be employed within the organisation.
The more important question, however, is whether an in-house assessment is the best approach.
The greatest challenge is not usually technical knowledge, it’s familiarity.
Just as workers can become blind to risks within routine tasks, internal assessors can become blind to risks within their own facilities. Long-standing issues may be overlooked because they have become accepted as normal, and assumptions may be made based on how processes are intended to operate rather than how they are actually being carried out.
Even small changes made since a previous assessment can introduce significant new risks that may go unnoticed.
An external DSEAR assessor brings several important advantages:
- Independent and objective assessment.
- Specialist knowledge of DSEAR requirements.
- Experience across multiple industries and facilities.
- Fresh eyes that can identify overlooked hazards.
- Greater confidence that risks are being accurately identified and controlled.
Most importantly, external assessors are not influenced by organisational habits, assumptions, or historical practices.
Engaging an external assessor should not be viewed simply as a compliance exercise, it is an investment in the safety of your people, assets, and business.
What Is a Safety Culture?
Safety culture refers to the collective attitudes, behaviours, and values that influence how people approach safety within an organisation.
A strong safety culture ensures that safety remains a priority regardless of production pressures, deadlines, or commercial demands.
Common characteristics of a positive safety culture include:
- Employees feel comfortable raising concerns.
- Hazards are reported and addressed promptly.
- Procedures are followed consistently.
- Continuous improvement is encouraged.
- Safety remains a priority under all circumstances.
Using an independent DSEAR assessor can reinforce these values by demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement and encouraging employees to challenge assumptions and identify opportunities for safer working practices.
This helps create a workplace where safety is viewed as everyone’s responsibility.
Conclusion
Cutting corners rarely begins with deliberate negligence. More often, it develops gradually through familiarity, routine, and the belief that “nothing has gone wrong so far. Unfortunately, this mindset can allow unsafe practices to become normalised, creating conditions where serious hazards go unnoticed until an incident occurs.
DSEAR assessments play a critical role in identifying and controlling risks associated with dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres. However, familiarity can limit an organisation’s ability to recognise its own blind spots. By engaging an independent DSEAR assessor, businesses benefit from objective expertise, a fresh perspective, and greater confidence that risks are being properly identified and managed.
Ultimately, investing in safety is far more than a compliance requirement, it’s a commitment to protecting people, safeguarding assets, and ensuring the long-term success of your business.
At Sigma-HSE, our experienced DSEAR specialists provide comprehensive assessments designed to identify hazards, prioritise corrective actions, and help you achieve compliance with confidence. Whether you’re reviewing an existing process or assessing a new installation, we can help you reduce risk, improve safety standards, and protect your workforce.
Ready to get started? Get in touch today to discuss your DSEAR assessment requirements.
