COMMENTARY | INITIATING CULTURE CHANGE


A catalyst for change


Now is the moment for industry to play their part alongside government and regulators to move the dial on new nuclear development. Can the UK’s Fingleton Report act as a catalyst for change?


By Tom Eastup, PA Consulting


The UK Nuclear Regulatory Review concludes that a combination of risk aversion, an emphasis on process over outcomes, and limited incentives aligned to the public interest have impacted nuclear progress and delivery Image source: Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce


THE UK NUCLEAR REGULATORY Review, led by John Fingleton, published its findings in November 2025, concluding that a combination of risk aversion, an emphasis on process over outcomes, and limited incentives aligned to the public interest have impacted progress and delivery in the nuclear sector. Whilst many of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce review’s 47 recommendations are aimed at government and regulators, the role of industry in driving change cannot be overlooked. The UK government’s subsequent response to


Fingleton, published in March 2026, confirmed that it will implement the review’s recommendations by the end of 2027. One of its key objectives is to reinvigorate Britain’s nuclear sector and the Chancellor wrote an open letter asking industry to set out how it plans to implement the recommended changes. This places a clear call-to-action before CEOs and Dutyholders. Industry can now use this review as a catalyst for wider transformation and the potential benefits for both industry and the broader supply chain could be significant. A more efficient and effective delivery environment – enabled by a more agile supply chain – would strengthen nuclear’s attractiveness to international investors and developers, stimulating demand, market growth and new revenue opportunities. It would also empower employees to get on with more of the exciting work they love, making the sector a more attractive employment proposition, and in turn help to solve the skills gap.


46 | May 2026 | www.neimagazine.com While some of the recommended changes are easier


said than done, by focusing on culture, process and technology, industry can make meaningful progress.


Driving culture change from the middle Fingleton’s recommendation 38 talks about Boards initiating culture change to prioritise outcomes over process. The review cites a culture of conservatism where people default to complying with a process, rather than prioritising outcomes. Yet high compliance and high performance can be complementary, not competing, forces. Whilst Boards should continue to prioritise driving culture change from the top, there is another group – mid-level leaders – who have a platform to drive change. When supported by the right culture, project managers, team leaders, process owners and heads of profession are all in a position to lead change within their spheres, in the ways things are done – one project, task or conversation at a time. One powerful technique is the establishment of a


‘skunkworks’ team to explore ways of cutting through some of the administrative burden presented by legacy bureaucratic management systems. One licensed site took this approach and achieved unprecedented levels of performance, whilst remaining compliant. They achieved this through a carefully considered new interpretation of the regulation, engaging with regulators to ensure clarity and confidence throughout. This team was empowered and sponsored by the


executive but ultimately it was project managers and engineers making a difference at the implementation level. The team’s outcomes acted as a demonstrator of what can be achieved and a first step in building the momentum needed to drive more widespread cultural change.


Unpicking processes to unleash pace Fingleton’s recommendation 10 talks about the need to prevent the conflation of nuclear risk and conventional risks. Part of this is a mindset issue, but a significant aspect lies within management systems. These contain the processes that outline how each organisation will operate and comply with regulations. In many organisations, management systems have seen the ‘ratcheting up’ of controls over time – driven by incidents occurring and then an understandable response being to add more controls. However there hasn’t been the same level of attention to removing controls that may no longer be required, which has compounded the amount of administrative burden.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53