As a start, it is essential in the ASSP to use sources with no expertise in Ethics to review others with no expertise in Ethics. Indeed, it seems engineers and amateurs with a collection of meaningless safety post nominals is all one needs to parade ignorance masked as expertise.
So, where do we start in any discussion of Ethics in Safety? Of course, with irrelevant scenario constructing a ‘strawman’ argument rather than anything to do with the foundation of Ethics. The last thing Safety wants to discuss is the abuse of power. Indeed. The word ‘power’ gets no mention in this article. The same applies for the amateurish AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics.
It seems the most important thing for Safety in any discussion on Ethics is to leave out any mention of the most critical elements of Ethics!
It is the silences of Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-culture-silences/) that are the most deafening and display its greatest ignorance. Yes, but make sure you repeat the word ‘professional’ as often as possible (14 times). Just don’t actually discuss what it means ethically to be professional.
Once you cut through the set-up scenario in this article, it suggests that this creates an ‘ethical dilemma’. Clearly, the author has no idea what an ethical dilemma is. The set-up scenario is just more Deontological (the primacy of duty) goop that pits duty against regulation and the supposed incompetence of workers.
If you want to find out more about the ethics of safety and its Deontological methodology you can download our latest book for free here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/
Back to the article.
The article then refers to ‘a robust network of individuals’ who can ‘help navigate the application of ethics to OHS’. So, it then goes on to quote people with no expertise in ethics as these sources. Ah yes, the best way to learn about brain surgery, History, culture or anthropology is to consult a safety person with a collection of post-nominals with no expertise in the subject.
It then goes on to do the same as the AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics and state that Ethics and Morality are the same thing. This is a clear indicator that they know precious little about either. Interestingly, as in the AIHS Chapter, they use the words ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ differently.
It then repeats the S2 cult saying of a difference between ‘work imagined and work done’. It then applies the same myth to the application or ethics: ‘The same goes for ethics as imagined versus ethics as applied’. Oh dear, this is the kind of goop one gets when an industry lacks critical thinking and has little understanding of the language it uses.
Just more of the same olde safety bias and disjunction between theory and practice, methodology and method. But, hey what a cute slogan about work as imagined and work done. Just so easy, because you know no-one in safety will challenge the assumption of the slogan.
So, how do we apply ethics in occupational OHS it asks. I know lets answer that question by using an engineer. I kid you not.
The article concludes by quoting from the ASSP Code of Professional Conduct, which of course is neither an ethic or has any sense of moral meaning. In this discussion, just like HOP, it labels a collection of systemic edits as ‘principles’. Similarly, the article uses the word ‘values’ and yet doesn’t discuss what values are.
And, we finish with this:
‘… as long as safety professionals maintain these fundamental values, they will always have justification for their decision-making and conduct.’
There you have it folks, the conclusion you want. Safety is always right, just hold onto those values you never discuss and your Deontological ethic and: ‘carry on’, ‘do the right thing’, ‘common sense’ and ‘all accidents are preventable’.
The article consults no research in ethics or any source of expertise in ethics. Ah, this is the safety way (https://safetyrisk.net/best-fraud-in-safety-wins-this-is-the-way/). The best fraud in safety wins.
All you have to do is: pump out the slogans, charge exorbitant fees, promise the impossible, spin some entertainment and forgod sake don’t seek expertise or Transdisciplinarity in what you are talking about. A sure fired recipe for no change, heaps of comfort in confirmation bias and don’t forget to repeat the word ‘professional’ fourteen times.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Psychosocial Risk, An iCue Conversation - January 24, 2026
- Humanising Risk in the Workplace- A Video Conversation - January 23, 2026
- Following-Leading and ‘Meeting’ in the Hyphen - January 22, 2026
- Conversations about Following-Leading in Risk - January 20, 2026
- Leading-Following, Methods in Helping/Caring in Risk - January 17, 2026
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below