Not sure i fully understand the question
but i assume you have tried to change your SMS culture from that of one based on evidence and symptoms, where your SMS reacts to these symptoms and acts to reduce the risk of an undesired outcome from a chain of events initiated by the symptoms. To a SMS which takes a set of "standard" generic risks and implements risk analysis based on those standard risk sets, ignoring any new outcomes and occurences from the risks previously identified and effectively saying there are no new risks just the same old generic ones that need to be mitigated and failed to get buy in from all stakeholders of this new culture.
firstly with culture it cannot be imposed, it can only be encouraged, nurtured and allowed to thrive in an organsation. if all stake holders neither understand or buy into this culture that you want it will not happen.
Secondly i agree that a generic set of risks in a SMS is not a good idea in my opinion as it closes the door to other stakeholders having some ownership of a risk event, if the standard reply is that its covered by the generic event probability. Wheras by allowing the stakeholder to believe they have come up with a new risk event and allowing them to champion the process, to own the risk understanding and illimination they buy into the process and outcome and this breeds a culture of safety.
There is no better way to engage the disinterested in safety than to get them to come up with all the things we are doing that might not be safe and then go through the SMS, scoring and reducing the risks for themselves.
You cannot impose safety upon someone, you can make them do a risk assessment for example, but they don't have to believe in it or take any notice of it, believing that they've done the risk assessment so thats the ass covered and we're safe now is a sure fire way to circumvent safety.
the bottom line is that with any culture change it has to be introduced as secondary effect of what you change, not the prime driver of your changes.
so back to your example, you want to change to a generic SMS, why, i assume it must save money, or do you believe it will create a lower risk business, do you think that your staff tasked with safety ( that's all of them ) are not up to the job of running a SMS such that you have to take the human factor out of it altogether, are you saying that the input of the staff is in fact a risk that you are trying to reduce by taking away their input to the SMS. or do you think that you can anticipate every risk in advance and have no need to learn and adapt pathologically as you go along.
Personally i feel generic safety systems and processes are a risk in themselves and i don't advocate a Voltairian approach top safety. If you can define every risk for every circumstance and define the mitigation for every one of those risks and know and truly believe that you will never see anew risk to safety from this day hence i will be very surprised, which means that if you did drop the pathological approach and something new comes along you won't actually have a SMS capable of dealing with it and you won't even know its there as a risk waiting to bite you in the ass.
just a few thoughts on SMS's.
GB