pushing the boundries of safety...spell it: PUSHING THE BOUNDRIES OF $AFETY.

bomarc, yes, “$$$” may be a contributor or even be the root cause – easy to say, more difficult to provide safety boundaries for the $$ aspects or define safety defences for them.
If a CEO takes a risky decision and succeeds s/he is the investor’s champion. If s/he fails, s/he rarely gets nailed by the Feds or the legal system; s/he might get fired, but with three years or more in the job s/he is set for life including a pension.

The CEO’s involvement in safety contributes to, even defines a company’s safety culture; this should include ‘a Just Culture’.
”An atmosphere of trust in which people are encouraged (even rewarded) for providing essential safety-related information, but in which they are also clear about where the line must be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.” James Reason.

Who then judges the CEO’s behaviour with respect to this just culture? What are the definitions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour at the top management levels – again is this judged by investors? If so perhaps they and the CEO should face the penalties when the line is crossed?

Lofty thoughts, but way above my domain to resolve.