Belief and Faith in Safety
I can say I have faith in someone meaning, I trust them to be and do who I know they are. I have faith in my wife who I have been married to for 52 years. Based on that track record, my faith may be well-founded. The same kind or level of faith can’t be held if you have known someone for a few hours. So, faith is connected to knowing/history, just as belief is a form of knowing without evidence. However, the nature of faith is such that the evidence is rarely rational.
I can also state that I have faith in a ‘thing’, eg. my car but there is no assurance that it will not break down. When we use the word ‘faith’ applied to things we are expressing a hope not a certainty.
I see so much in the Zero cult in safety that states ‘I believe in zero’. What does that mean? In this sense such an expression is a quasi-religious expression of belief in the infinite. Afterall, zero is both nothing and the infinite at the same time.
This is what happens when DuPont requests that safety ‘believe in the impossible’ (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/). This is religious-like discourse one would hear in any faith-belief religious system. The same is expressed in the DuPont Bradley Curve. Both are expressions of religious-like faith. After all, the Bradley Curve asserts against all the evidence, that human have a ‘natural instinct for self-harm.
There is no rational evidence for anything in either the Bradley Curve or the ideology of Zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). Similarly, there is no evidence for belief in any of the semiotic models that Safety has belief in (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-beliefs-by-semiotic-evidence/).
None of the semiotic models used in safety are scientific or rational. That’s what semiotic models do. They help complete the creation of a myth. You can believe all you want in the coloured risk matrix but it isn’t a scientific instrument. We see this in many safety texts that claim to be ‘scientific’ but have no evidence for what is believed. The swiss-cheese semiotic is not supported by any evidence, it is believed by faith. The Jenga blocks of HOP are exactly the same. There is no rational evidence that error works like swiss cheese or Jenga blocks. Such semiotic belief is more about political affiliation and myth than evidence for reality. Both models are semiotic projections, not knowledge-based on evidence.
When you see the word ‘scientific approach’ used for things like a theory of damaging energies, this is not science. Energy-based safety is a belief system that excludes any understanding of human personhood as if all these objects (energies) operate independently of the person who engages with them. That’s why safety loves ‘Energy-Based Safety’ so much – you don’t have to know anything about persons, the unconscious, culture, belief, ethics or any of the non-measurables that operate in the real world, the ecological world. ‘Energy-Based Safety’ is a faith-belief system.
What often happens in any faith-belief system is formation around a semiotic myth (eg. swiss-cheese, 10 energies) and then gets confirmed in hindsight by a range of cognitive biases. There is no connection between holes in swiss-cheese and the proof of safety. Similarly, the many triangles used in safety are myth-faith objects where meaning is attributed. The use of the word ‘scientific’ is mostly decorative. Don’t just love how Safety is so attracted to the religious number of ten.
Another example, when you read about the ‘1% safer’ con, just ask how such a margin of 1% is measured. After all, if the idea is using an image of measurement, shouldn’t it be measurable? Of course not, the 1% safer myth is an icon for let’s identify as safety. It’s a political symbol for a group. There is no way one can scientifically measure if anything is 1% more or less safe. 1% safer is a faith-belief group.
Yet, in safety, so few are prepared to talk about faith-belief. Indeed, Dekker even apologises for using the word in his book on suffering.
Prof. Karl. E. Weick was never afraid to use the words ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ in association with risk. Indeed, because risk is all about what it NOT known. This is why Weick was quite content to use the language of ‘Poetics’ when identifying his style in organisational psychology. Poetics is about all that cannot be measured and you cannot measure risk, it’s a wicked problem.
So, what do we do when we cannot measure of know risk? We turn to semiotics, models and symbols that give us meaning that create myths we believe in. This is why studying semiotic knowing is critical to the discipline of SPoR.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- How Can Safety Cause Moral Injury and Harm? - July 20, 2026
- Trump Safety - July 20, 2026
- The Sin Bin and Blame - July 20, 2026
- The Jenga Blocks are Swiss Cheese - July 20, 2026
- Belief by Repetition, the HOP Method - July 20, 2026
The core argument here regarding how the safety industry handles risk, symbols, and language raises valid academic points.
However, from the perspective of an operational, field-based safety professional managing high-hazard / SIF environments, there is a significant disconnect between desktop philosophy and the dirt.
Traditional tools like the Energy Wheel or visual models are not viewed by field supervisors as absolute scientific laws; they are used as simple, scannable, shared taxonomies to maintain situational awareness under dynamic operational pressures. When a plan hits the field and fails, a supervisor cannot manage or improvise via a lecture on semiotics or the unconscious mind. They need practical, immediate actions to protect human life.
If the critique is that mainstream safety frameworks are unscientific ‘faith-belief systems,’ then the same standard of scrutiny must be applied to SPoR. Where is the independent, blind peer-reviewed data confirming its operational efficacy? Where is the empirical track record proving it prevents serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs) in heavy civil construction, mining, or utilities better than system-capacity models or physical engineering?
Focusing heavily on the human psyche assumes you can rewrite human DNA and decades of ingrained field habits from behind a desk. It often appears that these specialized theories are circulated primarily within a closed loop of like-minded academics and theorists who share the same belief system. For those of us on the deck, safety isn’t an ideological debate about linguistics—it is a pragmatic, evidence-driven discipline where tools are judged strictly by whether they work when the work is actually being done
Mc, thanks for your comments. Of course, all semiotics carry meaning including those of SPoR and questioning those unconscious meanings is where we find belief/faith. I can assure you my analysis has very little to do with any ‘desktop philosophy’ indeed I ma working with organisations at the moment on issues of high risk to children in organizations regarding abuse etc. So, my mind is in the dirt so to speak.
If we consider all semiotics we know that all are interpreted and non-measurable and in that sense, no safety symbols can be ‘scientific’. eg. the swiss-cheese is a faith-belief image and has nothing to do with ‘science’.
If you are looking for evidence of how SPoR ‘works’ then you can read the case study “It Works, A New Approach to Risk and Safety (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/). or if you like I can put you in touch with any number of people on the ground who can tell you how ‘SPoR works’.
Your assumptions about my assumptions are quite remakeable, I would be happy to have a conversation if you thought that would be worth finding out what and how I think. I was working with people on the ground in a port facility this morning. I am on a building site tomorrow and in the midst of some nasty legal work at present. So, your assumption apparently, that I work ‘from behind a desk’, is again wrong. That’s not how I work and those who know me know this to be so. I don’t think your so called ‘pragmatic style’ entitles you to all your guesses and assumptions from this blog. Maybe direct contact rob@spor.com.au might be better than assuming I am in some academic circle of your imaginations.
Good evening Mic,
I wonder how deeply you’ve explored SPoR? There is a significant number of books authored by Rob (and others) that are available at no cost to anyone who wishes to learn more..Did you know that there have been over a million downloads of the SPoR literature? That’s significant don’t you think? If you’re able to point me (and others) in the direction of any other publications that have more downloads, then I invite you to share this information in this blog.
As a student of Rob’s and other SPoR specialists, for several years I encourage you to open your mind to learn something new. In addition, seriously consider attending the SPoR Convention in Canberra in September, where you will have the opportunity to meet other SPoR students from around the world.
Rob is an inspiration for me and many other SPoR students, he is most definitely not desk bound. Rob’s Semiotic Walks are well researched and provide invaluable information. I urge you to participate in at least one of these Walks. You will be impressed.
The other thing I wish to mention is that we are not Safety Professionals, as we don’t study ethics like other professionals e.g. nursing, medical, accountancy..I would be interested to learn where Safety practitioners can study ethics if you are able to provide this information.
I challenge you to embark on a learning journey with Rob..For me personally, I couldn’t imagine life without SPoR.
I look forward to engaging with you when Rob offers online training.
Sherralynne-
Thank you for your perspective and for sharing the information on the free SPoR resources and download numbers. Community reach and engagement are certainly notable.
My comments focused on the operational standard that many of us apply in high-hazard risk management and field leadership, frameworks are ultimately judged by measurable impact on serious injury and fatality prevention and real-world risk control, supported by clear evidence of efficacy. Volume of literature and personal conviction are meaningful to those who find value in them, but they are distinct from independent, outcome-based validation.
On the point about ethics and professional status, safety practitioners do operate under formal codes of ethics through bodies such as BCSP and ASSP, with ethics components built into certification pathways and professional practice. The distinction you draw appears to be more about emphasis on philosophical meaning-making than an absence of ethics study in the broader field.
I appreciate the invitation to the convention and Semiotic Walks. My focus remains on practical tools and approaches that demonstrably help field teams manage high-hazard work more effectively. Different frameworks serve different purposes, and I evaluate them against that pragmatic test.
Best regards,
Mic
My focus too is on practical down to earth doing. I have worked across many high-risk industries in my 56 years of employment and certainly understand the nature of high risk. Unfortunately, the codes of ethics you refer to are weak and in some sense dangerous. They are poorly formed and lack expertise and competence. This is easily demonstrated. Similarly, are not binding on actions like a profession. We have many practical down-to-earth tools and methods that many people use to tackle risk all across the globe. Of course, pragmatism is in the eye of the beholder and what they determine as significant and what they select as measures of meaning. Just because something is a focus of one doesn’t apply across the board to others or to all. Having worked across seven very distinct careers, I find that people make decisions is similar ways about risk and that many of the so called subjective tools practiced in safety, don’t work.
Rob,
I appreciate you sharing your views. However, several points in your reply require a direct response. You state that the BCSP and ASSP codes of ethics are “weak and in some sense dangerous” and lack expertise and competence. That is a serious claim. If you have specific evidence or documented cases where these professional codes have caused harm or failed to support competent practice, I would be interested in reviewing it. Broad dismissals without supporting analysis are not particularly persuasive.
You also mention having “many practical down-to-earth tools and methods” used globally to tackle risk. I remain interested in what those specific tools actually are and, more importantly, what measurable outcomes they have produced in serious injury and fatality prevention or demonstrable risk reduction.
Claims of practicality are only as strong as the results they deliver.
Pragmatism in high-hazard environments is ultimately judged by outcomes that can be observed and measured, reduced SIF exposure, improved system capacity, better decision-making under real operational pressure, and sustainable improvements backed by data. Different frameworks can and should be evaluated against those standards rather than personal assertions of experience.
I have no interest in assumptions or academic circles. I am interested in what actually works in the field for preventing serious harm. If you have concrete examples with results, I’m open to reviewing them.
Best regards,
Mic
Perhaps start by reading my book It Works. A case study of a large global organisation using my methods.