One of the sharper challenges discussed at the 2026 OHS Leaders Summit was also one of the simplest.
We talk a lot about shared ownership in safety. But ownership and accountability are not the same thing.
That distinction matters more than it sounds.
In complex organisations, safety sits across multiple functions. WHS builds frameworks and oversight. Operations direct the work. People and Culture shape capability and behaviour. Leaders set priorities and pressure points. Everyone has a role, but when accountability is unclear, the result is rarely collaboration.
Julio Bara said, “When accountability is not clearly defined, it does not get shared. It gets diluted.”
That is why the Summit’s focus on line-led safety was so important.
At its core, line-led safety is not a slogan. It is an operating model. It says the people who plan, direct and deliver the work must also own the hazards, the controls and the decisions that shape risk in real time.
Julio said, “The closer accountability sits to the work, the more effective it becomes. That is where decisions are made and where risk is managed in real time.”
Within this model, the role of WHS becomes more clearly defined.
Instead of being expected to “do safety” for the business, the function becomes clearer and more valuable. It designs the system, builds capability, and provides governance to ensure the system is working as intended.
Julio said, “Safety does not sit with a function. It sits with the business. The role of WHS is to make that possible.”
That clarity is what makes the model work.
The organisations making progress here are not relying on broad statements about responsibility. They are getting specific. Who is accountable for a particular risk? Who supports? Who makes the decision? Who owns implementation? Those details matter because vague accountability rarely survives operational pressure.
Julio said, “People need to understand exactly what they are accountable for. Without that, even well-designed systems struggle to translate into consistent behaviour.”
The Summit also pointed to a broader challenge. Leaders cannot be held accountable for safety if the systems around them are pulling in the opposite direction. If production targets, time pressure or commercial incentives consistently undermine safe decisions, accountability becomes conflicted before it is even exercised.
Julio said, “You cannot ask leaders to be accountable for safety if the system they are operating in is pulling them in a different direction.”
That is why line-led safety is about more than org charts and reporting lines. It depends on accountability sitting with the people leading the work, backed by a system that gives them the authority, support and clarity to act on it.