Zero has been the open religious mantra for safety for 7 years. The evidence for this cult is beyond debate (https://safetyrisk.net/if-you-want-to-know-about-culture-dont-start-with-safety/). The evidence for its support is overwhelming (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/) especially from so called ‘safety differently’ groups. It also receives overwhelming support from regulators and safety associations. I did a search on SEEK for ‘zero harm advisors’ and there were 363 jobs available that referred to it.
And, if you speak against zero you are somehow anti-safety. This is how the silly binary ad from Transport for NSW works (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra5LK8x86zU).
The reality is, zero ideology is the fundamental value, attitude and belief of the safety industry. It shapes and influences every part of its culture. It was centre stage at the safety congress of 2023 (https://visionzero.global/). THis is the culture of safety.
Make sure you go to the zero-vision page to get your news about nothing:
When perfection is your ideology (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) then all that follows will be brutal and characterised by policing. This is the culture of safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-culture-of-safety/).
All of this nonsense-speak that debates that there is no safety culture or indeed, no culture at all (in mind-blowing ignorance) is based on astounding lack of intelligence about culture. Cultural ignorance is one of the prime characteristics of safety culture. Ignorance is cultivated by Zero. Once you have ‘zero’ as your mantra, goal, linguistic frame and prime, all that follows must be influenced by it. And it doesn’t matter if you call it 1% safer, it’s the same ideology rebranded.
And once you have argued that safety culture should not be discussed (Busch), all that happens is the emboldening dominance of the culture of zero. Once you’ve said don’t talk about it, you can’t then talk about it. Silence about safety culture enables the power of the dominant culture of safety.
Yet, our survey shows (https://safetyrisk.net/update-on-zero-survey-just-believe/) (with ove 4000 respondents) that safety people on the ground don’t believe in zero. Indeed, they believe that zero promotes dishonesty and is a religious ideology. No wonder so many in safety want to leave the industry.
No wonder the work of Rosa Carrillo describes safety people as ‘voices in resistance’ (https://safetyrisk.net/ohs-voices-from-the-resistance-rosa-carrillo/). And this resistance is against the zero culture that has been cult-ivated by regulators and associations in fairy-land. No-one at the coal-face of high-risk work believes the impossible and speaks nonsense to people (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/).
Zero is the greatest source of division in the industry. The reason why the so-called not-so-differently movement exists is in resistance to this dominant culture in safety. It’s unfortunate that the many manifestations of this group continue to talk about performance and frame discussion by injury rates.
And, once zero gets in anywhere under the guise of ignorant binary argument, you can’t get it out.
Zero is the most unethical ideology one could ever introduce into any organisation. It is the foundation for brutalism and dehumanising safety. We even have so-called ‘safety differently’ people (who are not ethicists) talking about zero as some kind of moral goal (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/).
There is nothing moral or ethical about expecting perfection of fallible people.
Zero sets up every safety person in a moral dilemma.
Every zero-harm advisor must advise on what cannot be achieved and be held accountable for injury and harm. No wonder safety people are under enormous stress (https://carrilloconsultants.com/product/voices-from-the-resistance/).
This is the culture of safety.
Just imagine an association (AIHS) publishing a chapter on ethics that makes no mention of this dominant ideology! The truth is, there is no room for ethics in a zero mindset (https://safetyrisk.net/no-room-for-ethics-zero/). That same chapter on non-ethics makes no mention of the most dominant theory of ethics in this day ‘care ethics’. If there was any care ethics in safety, there would be no zero.
- This is why the culture of safety is NOT about care and helping.
- This is why safety people don’t want to join such an association.
- This is why safety people and workers dislike the regulator.
- This is why regulators brutalise people.
- This is why ethics is rarely discussed in safety circles as being relevant to being considered a professional.
- This is why safety is an industry NOT a profession.
This is the culture of safety.
The only way to improve safety is to jettison zero so that things can improve (https://safetyrisk.net/moving-away-from-zero-so-that-safety-improves/).
All of the organisations that get rid of zero find that safety quickly improves. All of the organisations that do SPoR and get rid of zero, find that safety can be easily humanised. Here’s a case study of a large global organisation that has done exactly this (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Mapping an Ethic of Risk - December 6, 2024
- Principles for Safety - December 6, 2024
- Causation Myths, Stop Looking for Linear and Root Cause - December 4, 2024
- Why Deliver Outcomes When Propaganda Will Do? - December 2, 2024
- When We Can’t Afford Safety - December 2, 2024
RICARDO MONTERO says
Dear Rob (I mantain “dear”, no matter your oppinion),
Ricardo under Rob´s attack, I feel important, but I never imagine
First, what evidence?, you NEVER has shown any evidence about your position on zero, you only has written oppinions, please, be serious, your oppinions are not evidences, well, to be rigoruos, they are the more low level of evidence, “what an expert beleive”. But evidence is something not construed with conflict of interest. I personnally do not believe in zero as a religion, I see zero as an idealism in safety performance as I see zero defects in quality or zero waste in productivity, it is something among many things for guiding management. I have been in many companies that using it and there are not any of the perversions you and others write zero induces, simply are not present, and they will not appear because your and others oppinions.
Criticism is never worng, your critics are essentially good, I think ( I do not speak for others), but simply your form is very wrong, I think. I am, among several things, an academic who use to make and receive critics. Your criticism is never balanced, for you only SPoR is the way, you are not able to recognised any more. Then, all your critics fail to me for the ausense of emotional resonance, I try of translating you an humble oppinion for incorporating humanity to your critics (not reffering to your propossal solutions), sorry for the inconvenience, but it reflects that, perhaps, I put the finger where must be. Your last sentence is a beutiful example of not accepting other´s ideas, but not Rob, my objective is to learn, I will continue to read about SPoR, I believe it is value. By the way I have read all your free book and materials and I never has write any thing againts SPoR and I promote it…despite you, I always alert to my students and colleagues that your critics must be taken in the essense and never must be taken in your forms, I beleive I has helping SPoR with it, it does not matter what you think. Any gift (critics) must take into account how it is packaged. Acceptance of the gift also has to do with this.
I used my time for answering out of respect to your SPoR creation, if you accept that critics without take in account the feelings of others is pure cruelty, something is made and, perhaps, it will be more easy to wing minds.
Rob Long says
You surely can’t be serious, the evidence against zero and especially in this blog is extensive. I suggest reading the blog.
RICARDO MONTERO says
I continually think and reinforcing myself that your ideas are goods if one eliminated all the arrogance of thinking that nothing has been good before you, it is what you inspire with your continually negative papers about the rest of the safety world. Sorry for yor slef-oppinion, but I personally has helped to many organizations to improving safety performance and I am proud of savings many lifes, avoiding mny sufferings, helping to improve care from people and elevating the dignity of both workers and managers. When I did, I do not know your SPoRs ideas. Now, I am incorporating them to mines. But Rob, it is disgusting to read your papers, minimizing and negating all achiving before your existence. By the way, you don´t have reason in this negation. I am a proof, and as me, we are a lot.
Rob Long says
Ricardo, disgusting? How fascinating. Please tell me where the criticism is wrong? Please tell me where the critical thinking is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that safety=zero and this makes safety toxic and unethical.
I always demonstrate the criticism with evidence, have you actually watched the movie Spirit of Zero? Have you thought for a second what zero does to this industry? Do you understand that improvement cannot come without criticism?
Has ever occurred to you that improvement doesn’t come by self-congratulating the industry for how it dehumanises people?
So, you do not know of anything of SPoR but are happy to be critical. You are happy to critcise my criticism but don’t know anything of what SPoR does? How amazing. I would suggest you don’t read my blogs and continue to immerse your self in zero.