Phibro Animal Health Corporation

Paul G. Peña brings extensive experience in environmental, health, and safety leadership within global manufacturing environments. With a background in regulatory compliance, operational risk management, and sustainability initiatives, he focuses on building structured systems that improve accountability and performance. His work emphasizes cross-functional collaboration, data-driven decision-making and continuous improvement across international operations.

From Compliance Execution to Risk Leadership

I have spent much of my career understanding that environmental, health, and safety is not a parallel function to the business. It is the business. At Phibro Animal Health Corporation, that realization has shaped how I think, how I lead, and how I define progress across our global operations.

Early in my career, my focus was precise and executiondriven. I worked to understand regulations, close compliance gaps, and ensure that facilities met their obligations. That phase was critical. It taught me discipline and reinforced the importance of consistency in protecting people and operations. But over time, as I moved into broader leadership roles, I began to see the limitations of a compliance-only mindset.

Compliance is essential, but it is only the starting point. The real work begins when you move beyond reacting to requirements and start anticipating risk. That shift changed how I approached my role. Instead of asking whether we were compliant, I began asking whether we were prepared.

Building Enterprise Visibility through Operational Excellence Baselines

One of the most defining efforts in this evolution was establishing an operational excellence baseline across 24 facilities. At the outset, leadership believed environmental performance was being managed effectively. In many ways, it was. Sites were compliant, and teams were doing their jobs. But what we lacked was a unified view.

s a unified view. When we began collecting and aligning data, we discovered that each facility tracked environmental metrics differently, using its own assumptions and methodologies. The issue was not intent—it was variability.

Bringing that data together required a significant effort. We worked through utility records, aligned definitions, and created a centralized system that allowed us to view environmental performance across all sites. The outcome was more than just visibility. It gave leadership the ability to prioritize investments, strengthen operational excellence, and identify where standardization would create the greatest impact.

Overcoming Resistance through Clarity and Trust

What stood out most during this process was not the technical challenge, but the human one. Site-level teams were already managing their own compliance requirements and them, standardized reporting initially felt like an added burden.

We addressed this by changing the narrative. We positioned standardized reporting as a tool for risk management and decision-making, not oversight. Over time, that approach built trust and improved engagement across sites.

This experience reinforced something I now consider fundamental. Systems do not drive change. People do. Without clarity of purpose, even the most well-designed framework will struggle to succeed.

Understanding the Real Nature of Operational Risk

As I looked more closely at the potential for operational disruptions or risk across our global network, a pattern emerged. The most significant disruptions were rarely from catastrophic events but rather the result of small, disconnected issues— process changes, aging infrastructure, contractor activities, or evolving regulatory expectations.

Historically, many systems were designed to address these issues at a local level. They were reactive and focused on compliance within each individual site. That approach created gaps in visibility and consistency.

To address this, we built a global framework that standardizes how risk assessments are made, improves product safety governance, and connects environmental and safety data directly to operational decision-making.

The real work begins when you move beyond reacting to requirements and start anticipating risk. That shift changed how I approached my role. Instead of asking whether we were compliant, I began asking whether we were prepared.

A strong example of this approach is our work on Safety Data Sheets and product safety governance. As global regulations evolved, inconsistencies in how SDS were managed became a potential risk. By centralizing procedures and standardizing processes across more than 2,000 products, we transformed SDS management into a proactive system that supports compliance and operational continuity.

Leveraging Technology While Preserving Trust

Technology is beginning to reshape how we approach EHS. Pilot programs using AI-enabled systems have shown how we can better identify risks, monitor behaviors, and improve safety and quality outcomes. At the same time, trust remains critical. These tools must be positioned as enablers of safety and improvement—not surveillance—so that adoption is both effective and sustainable.

As we built our operational excellence platform and digital infrastructure, one of the most important decisions we faced was determining what to standardize and what to leave flexible. We standardized elements that affect regulatory credibility and enterprise visibility, while allowing flexibility in how sites implement those requirements. This balance ensures consistency without ignoring local realities.

One of my key learnings from this engagement was how critically important it is to ensure stakeholder engagement early in the process to help strengthen ownership and accelerate implementation. Even with strong systems, having teams understand how technology and data can be used to support the business and continue to enable safety is a critical component to success.

Aligning EHS with Business Strategy

Ultimately, my role is about alignment. Environmental and safety priorities must be integrated into operations, supply chain, and strategic planning. In a regulated industry like animal health, this integration ensures that compliance and continuity work together to support reliable performance and long-term growth.

Looking ahead, the potential for environmental risk in business operations is becoming more complex. Climate impacts, regulatory pressures, and resource constraints are converging in ways that directly affect operations. Organizations must respond by treating environmental risk as a core business issue and embedding it into strategy, governance, and capital planning.

For me, this work has always been grounded in a simple principle. Safety and environmental stewardship are not obligations. They are values.

They define how we operate, how we make decisions, and how we build trust. And ultimately, they determine whether an organization can operate responsibly and sustainably in a complex and evolving world.