Improvements are a must to prevent auto sector workers from losing their fingers: Sandeep Sachdeva of Safe in India Foundation

A. We have two series of reports. Our CRUSHED series reported about 500 injuries every year for three years until FY20. We are now analysing our FY21 data and will report that in our third annual report later in the year. However, overall, sadly we will report about 500 injuries again. Remember, this is from only our small on-the-ground team and that too only in Gurgaon/Faridabad. The real number will probably be a multiple of that in the country.

Although injuries reported to us in Gurgaon have reduced in FY21, this is potentially a result of the COIVID-19 lockdown of the industry, when the Employee State Insurance Corporation’s functioning also slowed down. We, however, had a much larger number of injuries reported to us in Faridabad, where we started tracking about a year back…

In this first 2021 report of the new series, SafetyNiti, we have found, for the first time, that most of the top 10 auto sector brands do not have adequate worker-safety policies and practices for their deeper supply chain and for contract workers. This is based on the information we could find on their relevant policies in the public domain. Improvements in these policies are a must to prevent thousands of workers losing their hands/fingers in these component-making factories.

Q. What conclusion should readers arrive at about the process of automotive manufacturing in India?

A. The auto brands are highly profitable. Customers are increasingly demanding international quality of the product and safety for themselves. Sadly, the manufacturing processes among many suppliers are not professional enough and certainly not safe enough for workers, especially in the smaller factories. Fifty-nine percent of the injuries reported to us happen only on one kind of machine – the power press – where 80+ percent machines did not have even simple safety sensors. The majority of injured workers say that their accidents resulted from excessive production pressure.

We have met a number of very professional suppliers who understand that caring for workers pays off in the long run and we believe they are the businesses for the future. But if India has to develop better and faster in the auto sector or manufacturing, our industry needs to stop cutting corners and improve the working conditions for labour. Those who don’t do this will get left behind sooner or later and will not help India’s cause.

Q. Do you expect any changes in the manufacturing processes after the release of the report?

A. We certainly hope so. At least in three ways in the short term:
(a) recognition of worker safety as a driver of productivity and quality, as some of the auto brands and suppliers have stated themselves… low-cost automation can prevent many accidents and improve productivity on many machines;

(b) a focus in the auto sector on power press safety… Maruti has already started an initiative on that and we hope others follow,

(c) and, hopefully, a better set of production policies and procedures from Indian auto brands that push their suppliers, including tier 2/3/4, to professionalism and improve their production processes.

Q. Do you have comparisons of how such processes are followed in developed countries?

A. We have not conducted a methodical comparison of processes as that is not our area of focus and auto brands have this competence and experience already. It is a good idea and maybe we should do that at some stage, especially comparing processes of the same auto brands in India and say, Germany, or even China. I am sure there is a difference in scale, automation of processes, robotics, etc., but we are stressing the underlying process principle – that of manufacturing design thinking that includes worker safety as a critical factor and not only as a small cost of production.

Also, developed countries have a much stronger policy and judicial framework that is much more worker safety-friendly. In the UK, where I spend a lot of time, I do not believe that crush injuries in the auto sector are common at all. The financial penalty for such a loss to a worker due to a factory’s negligence will run into the equivalent of crores of rupees. We need to increase the cost of such accidents for factory owners in India to drive them towards safer manufacturing practices.

Q. Are you happy with the way original equipment manufacturers or their suppliers cooperated with SII for the report?

A. The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers and the Automotive Component Manufacturers Association have engaged with us and so have six of the 10 auto sector brands for this report and its release. That is great and we hope that now the auto brands and these apex sector organisations, who have the might to make a difference, initiate the actions recommended by us. It is a challenging task, given the depth of the supply chain, but we cannot delay actions to map the supply chain, identify good and bad manufacturing processes, and start attacking the problem. Even if only power press shops are focussed upon, we could halve these injuries in a year.

We will continue to work with the industry, support them where we can and provide an external checkpoint on the integrity and effectiveness of any actions taken or indeed not taken. We believe that we all want to improve this situation for the sake of workers and the businesses, small and large, and indeed for Indian manufacturing and its future on the world stage. Our main job is to increase awareness, recommend solutions and show the mirror when needed.