Management systems - on paper or by commitment?

I have always been of the view that management commitment is something that cannot be spelt out on paper that we can expect top management to follow. Paper based management systems will remain on paper unless top management throws its full commitment behind it. Commitment is intangible. It is seen at the ground when decision are taken by managers that have an effect on process safety.Top management are also human. They also can succumb to pressure from stakeholders. I will give you an example. A leading chemical manufacturer I visited had all management systems in place and certifications.During my field visit, I observed a safety valve on an equipment isolated as it was prematurely lifting (popping) and causing loss of production. This safety valve had no redundancy. When I spoke to the Plant manager,he mentioned that all systems remain on paper and when the actual decision on safety is to be taken, he is expected to take action to maintain production targets!
Interestingly, BP, after the recent oil rig disaster itself is of the opinion that management systems alone cannot control risks. I am quoting from the article: BP said "there can be no assurance" that a major global deployment of its in-house Operating Management System would identify all risks or provide information on the right actions to take when things go wrong. The rollout will be complete this year.OMS was introduced as a key safety step following the large explosion in BP's Texas City Refinery in 2005, which killed 15 workers and injured 170. The system is being implemented across BP operations in locally-tailored modules, following global standards. It is now in all US sites and will be rolled out by the end of the year to the remaining few sites elsewhere that do not yet have it.
The OMS system, described by BP as the "cornerstone" of its safety efforts, was developed by BP in-house, built around Microsoft SharePoint and Performance Point. It helps integrate local standards and management systems, set priorities, define processes and measure performance, and is accessible on BP PCs as well as mobile devices used by engineers on the rigs.
But yesterday BP said: "Even after implementation of OMS has been completed, there can be no assurance that OMS will adequately identify all process safety, personal safety and environmental risk or provide the correct mitigations, or that all operations will be in compliance with OMS at all times." Read the full article in this link.

What is the solution to this problem? Top management should pay attention to external safety audits as they indicate things that may not be spotted by internal audit teams. I have also seen some managements asking the external auditors to tone down their findings. Now this is hara kiri!Here the moral ethics of consultants and auditors come into play. Whatever certifications or management systems the company employs, there must be a threadbare audit of decision making and management's tracking of safety management systems. Its only the acceptance of facts that will prevent an incident.