Marty Stern is the Vice President of Global EHS at Colgate-Palmolive, bringing nearly four decades of operational and EHS leadership experience. His work has reshaped how global manufacturers manage risk by shifting the focus from lagging safety metrics to the prevention of serious incidents and enhancement of human performance. By embedding EHS into operational excellence, he has helped set industry benchmarks for resilient and reliable operations worldwide.
AT A GLANCE:
• Engineering Risk out of Operations – EHS leadership centered on control hierarchy and substitution to prevent serious harm and environmental impact.
• Leadership Alignment as a Safety Multiplier – Executive understanding and accountability embedded into serious injury and fatality prevention systems.
• Global Standards with Disciplined Local Execution – Consistent EHS expectations reinforced through audits, verification and sustained corrective action.
Recognizing Stern’s leadership in engineering risk out of operations through disciplined control hierarchies and leadership alignment, this article explores how his approach is helping global organizations move from compliance-driven programs to fail-safe EHS performance.
Leadership Beyond Compliance: Engineering Risk Out through Disciplined Control Hierarchy
Leadership in environmental health and safety has taught me that preventing harm demands more than procedural compliance. Over time, managing risk across global operations has crystallized a fundamental principle: the severity of risk dictates the intensity and architecture of protection required.
I begin with engineering solutions but push toward something more decisive, substitution or outright elimination. This conviction has shaped our approach to fall hazards. Rather than accept ladders as inevitable, we’ve invested in platforms, fixed access and portable stairs. Where ladders persist, fall-arrest systems are non-negotiable. The same logic governs noise and respiratory risks. Engineering out the hazard eliminates the dependency on personal protective equipment and the behavioral variability that accompanies it.
Working with European suppliers, we’ve redesigned safer tanker access by designing tanker venting and sampling at ground level, removing the need for workers to climb atop the tankers. Environmentally, we’ve moved beyond theoretical containment to rigorous, site-specific validation of capacity and structural integrity, ensuring that any release remains contained without impacting the community or the environment.
What matters most is anticipation. We actively seek input from maintenance crews and operators who encounter the system’s edges and gaps daily. Risk evolves, systems degrade and assumptions age poorly. Staying ahead requires constant reevaluation, disciplined workplace observation and the humility to recognize that the next failure mode may already be present; we just have to identify it.
Applying Judgment within Frameworks: Leadership Alignment for Fail-Safe Prevention
Frameworks establish boundaries, but preventing serious incidents & fatalities (SIFs) requires something less procedural and more deliberate: leadership that understands what’s at stake and acts accordingly.
The most consequential shift I’ve witnessed is embedding serious injury and fatality prevention into organizational instinct rather than treating it as a metric to manage. Our supply chain and executive leaders grasp the distinction between controlling risk and merely documenting it. That understanding has been decisive.
Engagement scores matter as much as any safety metric. Shop-floor engagement correlates strongly with performance across environmental health and safety, operations and quality. When people feel heard and involved, systems function as intended.
For over four years, we’ve tracked potential SIFs by differentiating between controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The objective is unambiguous: move toward fail-safe outcomes where human error or system breakdowns cannot produce a catastrophic event or incident. Progress depends less on technical rigor than on leadership’s capacity to align around intent, articulate it clearly and sustain commitment when competing priorities emerge.
Without executive buy-in, even sophisticated programs remain abstract and ineffective. With it, risk reduction becomes an operational reality. What I’ve learned is that alignment at the top determines whether safety systems function as designed or exist only on paper.
Balancing Global Consistency and Local Execution: Sustaining Performance at Scale
Managing risk across geographies with uneven regulatory maturity has taught me where to insist on consistency and where adaptation strengthens outcomes. At Colgate-Palmolive, we establish company standards that apply universally while requiring full compliance with local regulations, recognizing that both layers are essential.
Our audit model blends internal rigor with external expertise. Third-party environmental consultants assess regulatory adherence while Colgate-Palmolive auditors verify alignment with company expectations. When gaps emerge, sites develop action plans tracked through closure. Audits are conducted every three to six years, with mid-tier verification ensuring that corrections remain effective under operational pressure. If issues resurface, findings reopen and closure plans intensify.
What this structure delivers is predictability. Episodic compliance gives way to durable resilience when standards remain consistent, verification stays independent and follow-through is disciplined. The lesson is straightforward but consequential. Performance improves not through occasional intervention but through systems designed to surface problems early, demand accountability and confirm that solutions endure beyond the audit itself.
Detecting early warning signals: Anticipating EHS performance decline
Performance deterioration signals itself before lagging metrics confirm the decline. I track traditional measures, including recordable rates, days away from work, serious injury and fatality incidents, releases and spills. But I’ve learned that non-traditional indicators often reveal risk earlier. Audit findings, unplanned downtime and absolute material loss expose vulnerabilities that incident data misses.
Engagement scores matter as much as any safety metric. Shopfloor engagement correlates strongly with performance across environmental health and safety, operations and quality. When people feel heard and involved, systems function as intended.
When unfavorable trends emerge, we intensify oversight. Division leaders and supply vice presidents become accountable for tracking corrective actions, reporting progress and demonstrating that improvement sustains beyond initial intervention. What I’ve come to believe is that leading indicators, particularly those reflecting human factors and system stress, provide the clearest view of where performance is heading, rather than where it has been.
Advice for Aspiring Global EHS Leaders: Operational Insight and Strategic Influence
For EHS professionals seeking to take on global responsibility, impact begins with understanding how operations and business priorities intersect. Effective programs emerge from alignment with senior leadership and sustained connection to the shop floor. My operational background has taught me that central directives must occasionally be adjusted to accommodate business realities without compromising safety fundamentals.
As the scope expands, influence matters as much as technical capability. At senior levels, expertise provides credibility, but the ability to communicate intent clearly and advance a cohesive platform determines whether programs succeed or stall.
What I’ve learned is that leadership in this field requires fluency across multiple audiences. You must speak the language of executives focused on risk and value, while remaining grounded in the practical constraints that supervisors and operators face. Consistently bridging that gap is where lasting change occurs.
