There is a mismatch between the desire to introduce greater levels of sustainability in engineering design and in the need to provide effective engineering solutions, particularly where issues of human safety and asset protection are involved. Sustainability engineering typically incorporates economic, environmental, and social factors, all of which are highly relevant and applicable to fire safety and the design of fire protection systems. The term fire strategy denotes a documented methodology to encapsulate a full range of such systems, within a single framework, for more complex risks such as those found in the process industry. The subject of fire safety is emotive and its application within building design may not change unless we refocus on a holistic and strategic approach, especially for complex building profiles. Fire is a recognized critical safety issue for most types of industrial plants. Due to the complexity of the processes, even a relatively small fire accident can lead to a chain of events that could be devastating, resulting in huge asset and continuity losses, damage to the local environment, and of course, the threat to life. More complex processes require a more flexible and relevant approach. The use of fire safety engineering and performance-based evaluation techniques, instead of prescriptive rules, continues to grow in prominence because of this. This is the case when specifying fire protection and safety for modern power generating plants. However, when it comes to critical infrastructure, such as is the case with power plants, it is sometimes not clear whether optimum fire safety engineering solutions have been applied. One of the ideas specifically developed for evaluating the most appropriate fire safety strategies and systems, especially for such infrastructure examples, is a method based upon the British Standard Specification PAS 911. This method is captured in a diagram and identifies eight main elements for fire safety and protection. The idea presented in this article is to allow assessment of a submitted actual fire strategy for a building or other form of infrastructure, against what has been predetermined as a standard baseline fire strategy for, in this case, a power plant building. The assessment makes use of a multi-level questionnaire, in this case specifically formulated for power plant fire safety needs. By comparing the actual fire strategy diagram against a baseline fire strategy, enforcement agencies, or other interested stakeholders, can recognize which fire safety factors play the most important part in the fire strategy, and determine whether proper levels of fire safety and protection have been applied. The fire strategy evaluation is realized by a team of engineers, which consists of independent fire strategist from a consultant office, internal fire and technical experts from the industrial plant, such as the person responsible for fire safety, person responsible for explosion safety, person responsible for housekeeping, and building manager. Additionally, there should be representatives of insurance companies and independent fire experts. Typically, the group consists of 7 to 12 people.

In recent years, also in connection with Covid-19 pandemics and enforced restrictions, there has been the formation of large industrial corporations gathering separate companies with similar, sometimes complementary production profiles. This evolving trend has brought usually positive economic effects; however, it has also created some integration problems that include the process safety management. The Texas City BP accident in 2005 and its tremendous human and economic losses underlined the obstacles in defining a well-structured corporation process safety management. The main causes of the above-mentioned accident were connected to an inadequate safety culture at the managerial level. Strong leadership and high standards of corporate governance are required to inspire correct safety behavior in the staff. The so-called soft skills become even more important in the Industry 4.0 arena, where the foundation of the whole system is based on an intelligent use and interpretation of data. The importance of this aspect is confirmed by several post-accidental analyses of past events. Although some research on this topic has been already done, it is worth it to dedicate some effort to identifying specific factors which influence the corporate process safety management quality, and, once identified, to assess them. This paper applies the concept of “lessons learnt” for the identification of organizational and managerial aspects worth consideration in process safety management. Based on accident and literature reviews and expert opinions, the aim is to identify the major contributing factors among leadership and safety culture, risk awareness, knowledge and competence, communication, and information and decision-making processes. To self-assess the level of commitment of the top leaders in process safety management, a checklist approach is proposed, combined with a quantitative, weighted evaluation based on the Relative Efficiency Indicator (REI). Positive value of REI may ensure the effectiveness of process safety management in major hazard industries and their appropriate adaptation to the corporation community. The proposed method, which is validated in an actual case study, underlines the importance of an appropriate education, and of a more careful selection of HSE managers.