A catalyst for change

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.

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.

The review states that more proportionality is needed to avoid excessive process burden. especially for lower risk activities. To address this, processes should be reviewed and prioritised for their potential to significantly reduce friction. In addition, different organisations interpret the requirements for regulatory compliance differently. But if industry could pool its insights, it would help the adoption of approaches that are both efficient and safe.

The review also cites disproportionate size and complexity of nuclear safety cases as a key issue. Solving this will require cooperation from multiple sides. Site license companies can explore more simplified and standardised processes – especially for low hazard activities such as dismantling facilities where the radioactive material has been removed – as well as engineered solutions. This may require making challenging management system changes upfront, but the medium-term efficiency benefits will more than justify the initial work.

Suppliers have a role, too. They will need to adopt shorter, less time-consuming development cycles, which could potentially mean less revenue per project in the near term. Yet suppliers who help site license companies streamline the safety case process will be rewarded far beyond any short-term dip in revenues through differentiated service quality and intellectual property from new approaches.

Adoption of digital technologies and AI

Recommendation 41 talks specifically about the need to establish a nuclear digital strategy to accelerate the take up of digital technologies, including AI, to modernise approaches to whole-life safety and regulation. This, however, should be more than a digital strategy but bring change on the shop floor, in workers’ day-to-day activity and in what they access on their laptops.

The supply chain has the capability to use AI to automate or speed up many types of engineering design and safety management activities. There are numerous AI and digital use cases being explored at all levels, but many of these remain at pilot stage. Organisations need to move beyond this to apply a ‘productionisation’ mindset – a firm, top-down intent to scale and embed across the organisation. One common mistake is focusing too much on the technology itself. Ultimately the adoption of digital technologies, including AI, is as much a people challenge as a technical one – changing habits, behaviours and ways of working at the individual level is key.

An important technique is centring the development of digital tools around the user and relentlessly focusing on removing frictions and mundane work, as this maximises the chances of adoption. It is also important that digital technologies aren’t viewed as replacing people’s jobs. Using technology to automate administrative tasks can free up people to move on to higher value adding activities, that they will get far more satisfaction from doing. This should be key in the messaging to workers.

Industry now has an unprecedented opportunity to drive meaningful change in delivery performance whilst maintaining safety outcomes. This can be achieved by developing short, focused actions plans structured around three change agendas – culture, process and technology. Organisations should be accountable for their own plans, but also explore how to work together across company boundaries to share learning, maximise impact and unlock the full potential of the sector.

This was first published in Nuclear Engineering International.