When considering process (how to tackle risk) and outcome (safety), one has to think of what methodology (philosophy/ontology) drives method (doing). (https://safetyrisk.net/free-spor-poster/)
Most often in Safety, this is done in reverse. When the desired outcome (safety) is made paramount (safety first), then it works things out in reverse. The outcome is considered first and the process to get the outcome comes second. What results is, the end (safety) is used to justify the means (process). When the outcome (safety) is anchored to zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) then the method must become brutal to persons.
This is what happens when safety is made the foundation for thinking.
The foundation for right conduct (the humanising of persons) is NOT the way Safety thinks about safety. The foundation for right conduct is: what ethic drives your process in tackling risk?
This is NOT the question asked by Safety. Process comes second to outcome. When its ‘safety first’ then what comes second?
Anything that interrupts an ethic of risk in order to get the outcome desired (safety) will infect the conduct of the process (tackling risk).
Safety is NOT the foundation for thinking about and enacting methods for tackling risk.
For example: when we read about organisations asking employees to make safety an obsession (https://safetyrisk.net/dont-be-obsessed-with-safety/; https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-a-mental-health-disorder-obsession/) the outcome is NOT safety but the creation of an organisational mental health disorder! The outcome will not be safety but the brutalism of persons.
For example: when psychosocial health is made a ‘hazard’ (https://safetyrisk.net/not-just-another-hazard/) then the process changes. After all, the focus on the safety industry is the elimination of hazards to get the outcome of safety. If one applies the normative Hierarchy of Control to psychosocial ‘hazards’ then one starts with the first step (elimination) to the last step (PPE).
In all of this we see the language of safety (obsession, hazard, zero) driving unethical process justified by the outcome.
This is why the foundation for thinking about safety must be founded on an ethic of risk. And, that ethic of risk must start with the humanisation of fallible persons NOT a duty to the outcome (safety). This is where the AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/) goes in reverse.
Similarly, just read anything by Safe Work Australia, everything starts with the foundation of the Regulation not with the humanisation of persons in the process of tackling risk.
Starting points (foundational philosophy/ontology) drive methods and when the outcome is made the starting point: the outcome drives the method. This is not a way to work out what your ontology or methodology is.
The starting point and foundation for any activity that seeks to be professional is: what ethic drives your process in tackling risk?
If the starting point for thinking about risk is zero, then one must do whatever it takes to get that outcome, otherwise the goal is meaningless.
This is why global safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-global-zero-event-this-is-safety/) cannot escape its fixation on zero ideology (https://safetyrisk.net/the-global-zero-event-this-is-safety/). When safety is defined as the absence of injuries then there is no real choice, there is no other acceptable number other than zero. Wherever you see a fixation on numerics (https://fromaccidentstozero.com/) you see traditional safety. From this foundation Safety must travel down the pathway of obsession with measurement (https://safetyrisk.net/the-measurement-mindset-in-safety/) and ‘performance’ (https://safetyrisk.net/what-do-you-mean-by-performance/).
Again, look at the language used. Look at anyone claiming to offer innovation in safety is this their starting foundation: what ethic drives your process in tackling risk?
If the end point (safety performance as outcome) is the primary language, then what is the method?
The starting point for any profession ought to be an articulation of ethical conduct, again: what ethic drives your process in tackling risk?
If your methods don’t humanise persons in the process then you’re not professional nor is an ethic of risk foundational to what is being done. You can’t talk about ‘doing’ differently without first discussing an ethic of risk.
In SPoR, an ethic of risk is made foundational (https://safetyrisk.net/ethics-morality-and-an-ethic-of-risk/) for method (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/). In SPoR, the presence of injury is not a measure of safety, neither is ‘safety performance’ the foundation for what SPoR does.
The reason why SPoR seems at odds with the safety industry is not because of some bizarre wish to be contrary or ‘negative’ as safety people suppose, but rather due to a complete opposite view of the process (methodology): what ethic drives your process in tackling risk?
It is so laughable when Safety projects negativity onto SPoR. Poor old Safety makes disagreement in philosophy ‘negativity’. Critical thinking is made ‘negativity’ and disagreement is ‘negativity’. Then when the reverse criticism is projected it never articulates its ontology or methodology. In Safety, Initiating critical thinking apparently is bad but reverse criticism is good.
What often eventuates is not criticism of the philosophy of SPoR but usually name calling and emotional outbusts.
The starting point is: SPoR has a completely different ontology/philosophy than Safety (1 & 2).
In SPoR, the outcome does NOT drive the process.
If you want to know more about the positive and practical methods of SPoR (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) you can either download any of the free books (https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/) or join in the free 2 hour Introduction to SPoR being offered by Matt Thorne in 2024. Just contact Matt at: matthew@riskdiversity.com.au
If you would like to do a course in SPoR on Ethics, you can register here: https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below