Rethinking Stop Work Authority: A Key Part of a Larger Safety System

In high-risk industries, safety is not just a priority; it’s a necessity. One of the most widely adopted tools to reinforce safety culture is Stop Work Authority (SWA), a policy that empowers workers to halt operations when they perceive unsafe conditions. On paper, SWA is a powerful mechanism. In practice, however, its effectiveness hinges on far more than a written policy or a signed executive statement. It requires cultural alignment, psychological safety, and organizational commitment. 

The Promise of Stop Work Authority 

At its core, SWA is designed to prevent incidents before they occur. It gives every employee, regardless of rank or role, the right to stop work if they believe safety is compromised. This concept is rooted in the belief that those closest to the work are often the first to recognize hazards. When implemented effectively, SWA fosters proactive safety behavior, encourages open communication, and strengthens hazard mitigation efforts. 

Organizations that embed SWA into their safety culture report improvements in early hazard identification and employee engagement. Scenario-based training, such as Stop Work Drills, has proven particularly effective in helping workers understand when and how to act. These drills simulate real-life situations, allowing teams to discuss triggers, escalation paths, and the nuances of decision-making under pressure. [Yasseen, A., Nonno, L., & Lopez Andrade, D. (2024)] 

The Reality Gap: Why SWA Often Falls Short 

Despite its potential, SWA often fails to deliver on its promise.  The contrast between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done is fundamental to the modern safety science concepts Safety-II, Safety Differently, and Human and Organizational Performance (HOP).  Workers frequently hesitate to exercise their authority due to fear of retaliation, peer pressure, or uncertainty about what constitutes a “stop-worthy” situation. 

A study in the liquified petroleum gas industry found that contextual factors (job security, team dynamics, and organizational culture) play a significant role in whether workers feel empowered to stop work. Temporary workers, for instance, are far less likely to use SWA than their permanent counterparts. The fear of being labeled as difficult, slowing down production, or facing subtle forms of reprisal can be powerful deterrents. 

Additionally, the assumption that everyone knows what is safe or unsafe is deeply flawed. Risk is often ambiguous, and danger may not be immediately visible. Workers may question their judgment, especially when others around them appear unconcerned. This phenomenon, known as the bystander effect, is well-documented in social psychology and has direct implications for SWA. When no one else acts, individuals are less likely to intervene, even in the face of clear hazards. [Furst, P. (2015)] 

Cultural and Organizational Barriers 

The effectiveness of SWA is not just a matter of individual courage; it is a reflection of organizational culture. In environments where productivity is prioritized over safety, or where past concerns have been ignored, workers quickly learn that stopping work is not truly supported. This scenario is particularly evident in industries like oil and gas, where production pressures and complex hierarchies can discourage intervention. 

The Deepwater Horizon disaster is an example. Despite having a stop work policy in place, no one intervened, even as warning signs mounted. Investigations revealed a culture of fear, blame, and procedural rigidity that stifled worker empowerment. The lesson is clear: without a supportive environment, SWA becomes a symbolic gesture rather than a functional safeguard. 

The Human Element: Understanding Hesitation 

Understanding why workers hesitate is crucial to designing more effective systems. Research highlights several recurring themes: 

• Fear of being wrong or overreacting 

• Peer pressure and fear of alienating colleagues 

• Unclear authority to intervene in cross-functional teams 

• Perceived futility can result from past concerns being ignored 

• Only delaying the task if it will be reassigned without improvement 

• Financial disincentives, such as lost bonuses or overtime 

These are not trivial concerns. They reflect the complex interplay between individual psychology and organizational dynamics. Addressing them requires empathy, transparency, and a willingness to challenge entrenched norms. 

Designing for Success: What Works 

To make SWA effective, organizations must move beyond compliance and focus on contextual empowerment, addressing the psychological, social, and structural barriers that inhibit action. Several strategies have emerged from research and case studies:

	Scenario-Specific Training: Tools like Stop Work Drills help bridge the gap between policy and practice. By using real-world examples, leaders can engage teams in meaningful discussions about risk perception, decision-making, and support systems
	Union-Led Implementation: At Shell’s Norco refinery, a successful negotiation of the SWA was achieved through collective bargaining. The result was a more robust policy that included anti-retaliation clauses, clear procedures, and shared ownership between workers and management. [Sallman, S., & Engler, R. (2022)]
	Leadership Visibility and Support: Workers are more likely to use SWA when they see direct supervisors and senior leaders actively supporting it, including recognizing those who stop work, even if the concern turns out to be unfounded.
	Job Security and Equity: Ensuring that all workers—regardless of employment status—feel equally empowered is critical. This may involve contractual protections, anonymous reporting mechanisms, or peer support systems.
	Clear Criteria and Communication: Ambiguity is the enemy of action. Organizations must define what constitutes unsafe work, provide examples, and ensure that all employees understand the expectations and consequences.
	Cultural Reinforcement: SWA should be integrated into broader safety management systems, such as those outlined in ANSI Z10 or ISO 45001. These frameworks emphasize worker participation, continuous improvement, and leadership accountability.

From Policy to Practice 

Stop Work Authority is not a silver bullet. It is a last line of defense, not a substitute for robust hazard controls or proactive risk management. But when implemented thoughtfully, it can be a powerful tool for preventing harm and reinforcing a culture of safety. 

The key is to treat SWA not as a checkbox, but as a living practice—one that evolves with the organization, adapts to its challenges, and reflects its values. Empowering workers to stop unsafe work is not just about giving them permission; it’s about giving them confidence, clarity, and the support they need. [Weber, D.E., MacGregor, S.C., Provan, D.J., & Rae, A. (2018)] 

In the end, the true measure of SWA’s success is not how often it is used, but how confidently it can be used—without fear, without hesitation, and with the full backing of the organization. 

Support That Drives Safer Operations 

By partnering with Montrose, organizations can confidently build a Stop Work Authority program that is clear, consistent, and embraced at every level of the workforce. Our team provides end-to-end support—including program design and development, targeted training and awareness, culture and engagement initiatives, auditing and compliance reviews, incident-investigation alignment, and digital reporting solutions—to create systems that empower employees and strengthen operational safety. With a comprehensive yet practical approach, we help companies foster a proactive safety culture, increase intervention confidence, and ultimately reduce risk across their operations.