Why does the airline industry fail to adopt them after 10 years even though the nuclear, rail and ANSP industries and the RAF have all adopted them?
The industry may not have adopted Shell's onerous approach but will have instead implemented their own, simpler, easier to understand and more effective procedures. Fancy diagrams, long buzzwords and management-speak phrases and other such marvellous things does not improve safety. If Also the processes, if followed in the way the article suggests, will add little to safety but very nicely nail some poor sod who might step out of line. An outcome hardly conducive to safety as too many will start fiddling (or shredding) paperwork or stories. Additionally, the departments who cook up this guff are consuming scarce resource which could be put to better use, like QAR data processing, training, communications etc. Safety programs do not have to have bloody diagrams to work.
And have you ever wondered why not everyone jumps to bid for Shell's outsourced corporate aviation work? The article only explains half of the hoops a bidder has to hop through. I understand that you have to buy into this process to be able to bid for the work. So I'm sure many companies decline to even read the bid offer let alone put any effort into it (I know of a couple for a start).
On a more positive note, I'd suggest that the main reason Shell's aviation department has an enviable safety record is that it has well trained and above all, very experienced operators. With or without your "safety" guff, it would still be safe.
PM