• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Psychosocial Safety
    • Resiliencing
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychosocial Safety
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety
      • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
      • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
      • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
      • What is Psychosocial Safety
      • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
      • What is Psychological Safety?
      • Understanding Psychological Terminology
      • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
      • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
      • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Ethics / The AIHS BoK and Ethics, Check Your Gut!

The AIHS BoK and Ethics, Check Your Gut!

February 8, 2020 by Dr Rob Long 51 Comments

One of the best ways to be ethical about ethics is to declare your worldview/methodology (ethic) from the outset. It is from one’s ethic (methodology-ontology) that one’s method emerges. In my case whenever I undertake education and learning modules such as the recent modules on Transdisciplinarity and Ethics (https://spor.com.au/home/one-week-intensive-2-modules-february-2020/) I make it very clear that my bias is one of an Existentialist Dialectic. I also make it very clear that there are many other competing worldviews (and I map them, see Figure 1. Mapping Schools of Ethics) and that most people construct combinations of these (unconsciously), eclectically. Unfortunately, people either don’t know their worldview (ontology) or don’t disclose it when they develop discussions on knowledge, learning and ethics. This is the case with the AIHS BoK on Ethics.

Figure 1. Mapping Schools of Ethics (Download here: Schools of Ethics 2 )

image

One thing is clear from analysis of the BoK on Ethics is that its worldview is one of Deontology (https://miami.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-problem-we-all-have-with-deontology; http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml) enacted in Masculinism and Utilitarian method. These are not declared in the BoK but are hidden in the text. We can see this even with a simple analysis of language. The most important and repeated language in the BoK is about ‘duty’ (21 times) clearly connected to Deontology and Kantian ethics. Of course, the language of ‘wisdom’ appears nowhere yet the language of ‘obligation’ appears 30 times. The language of compliance appears 10 times and yet the importance of relationship appears 5 times and uncertainty 4 times. There are many comparisons like this that show that the ethic of the BoK are Deontological, Masculinist and Utilitarian. It’s all about power for the professional. For example the language of ‘humble’ and ‘humility’ appear nowhere in the text! Yet the virtue of respect and an orientation of humility are considered by many to be essential to act professionally and engage in discourse with others.

However, we need to do more than just a word search, although language, symbols and grammar are often indicative of an ideological disposition. There are many other indicators in the BoK on ethics that signal alarm bells for an ‘Ethic of Risk’. The elephant in the room for the global safety industry is the ideology of zero. Here we have a publication, a so called ‘body of knowledge ‘ for WHS, and there is no mention of zero! This is despite the fact that zero is now the global ideological mantra (http://visionzero.global/node/6) for an industry consumed with counting, numerics, metrics and the disease of paperwork! Indeed, it is clear the BoK on ethics is anchored to the INSHPO declaration and framework, all informed and shaped by the ideology of zero!

It doesn’t matter what words, systems or structures, procedures or language, symbols or gestures one choses, all carry an implied ethic. There is no activity, mantra or position that is neutral or objective. All humans carry a bias that ought to be declared as an essential to being ethical, also an essential to any safety investigation. Hiding one’s ethic is essentially dishonest and therefore unethical. Such is the nature of the BoK on ethics.

The Deontological ethic of the BoK is clear in discussion about the certainty of objectivity. Therefore if knowledge is certain then duty can be certain. Yet, in the BoK itself this is quite contradictory. We are told on p.31 that humans are biased and subjective yet on pages 18, 32, 55 and 82 we are told that safety people can be objective with ‘facts’. Similarly, by not raising the most important and contentious ideology in the industry – zero, there is a fundamental dishonesty in hiding such a discussion. The implications of hiding zero in a discussion on ethics for the industry is significant and yet the BoK is silent on such. So, zero has nothing to do with being professional! What an amazing silence, for it is zero that drives: numerics, data obesity, fixation on minutia, metrics, counting and connected paperwork and associated ethical problems of: ‘tick and flick’, flooding, fake and dishonest recording, underreporting, blaming and attributions of safety to numerics.

When we were working through the SPoR module this week on an Ethic of Risk we had a number of safety people in the room when we spent some hours critiquing the AIHS BoK on Ethics. What came out of the discussion with safety people in the room was their concern that the very fundamental ethical dilemmas of being a safety person receive no mention in the BoK. The discussion (Figure 2. Discussing Ethics and WHS) raised issues that people considered critical for day to day moral dilemmas for the safety person for example, challenges with:

  1. Uncertainty with ALARP and subjectivity
  2. Speaking up and whistleblowing and authoritarianism
  3. Privacy and mental health
  4. Ambiguities with Due Diligence and inadequate legal knowledge
  5. Lack of holistic training in critical parts of safety work eg. pastoral care
  6. Conforming to the power of superiors and demands to be unethical about: data, reporting, recording and time
  7. Dishonesty associated with ‘turning a blind eye’, prioritizing risks, politicizing risk and dissonance in performing professionally
  8. Power and policing and dissonance with care and understanding others, particularly with mental health issues
  9. Bullying, and demands to be brutalizing in ‘enforcing’ systems, procedures and controls
  10. KPIs linking safety to performance, payment of reward for under-reporting and incentivizing dishonesty

These and many more issues were raised as ethical challenges that served as compromises and pressures on the ability of safety people to act professionally. None of this is discussed in the BoK on Ethics.

Figure 2. Discussing Ethics and WHS

clip_image004

There is so much missing from the BoK on ethics, so many issues of a critical nature to safety people for acting professionally that are not discussed. No mention at all of the challenges of heuristic, implicit thinking as an ethical dilemma with accountability yet, gut thinking is framed as the final step in ethical decision making at section 9.1! No mention of the challenges of social psychological influences and the nature of responsibility. Yet, profound admissions in the text of the that Safety has no remedy for its Machiavellian character and unscrupulous culture! Also an admission that there is no plan for education and learning in ethics in the WHS curriculum! (p.30, 31) Yet, ethics is the soul of professionalism! (p.1). Indeed, the concept of learning gets scant mention within the admission that safety people are not qualified for what they do. Of course, the issue of learning poses a significant moral dilemma for safety, especially in its quest for stasis and objectivity through the ideology of zero.

We also learn in the text of the BoK that safety people are somehow (and naturally) ethically committed. Somehow magically, safety people ‘have an inbuilt desire’ (p.9) (read natural law ethics) to know how to act professionally and ethically without any learning about ethics. What??? What an assertion after already admitting that the industry is entrapped in an ethic of an unscrupulous Machiavellian culture (p. 22, 27).

I’m trying to keep this blog short so just one more issue and in connection to a model for ethical decision making in section 9.1, what an amazing linear model. Here is the model for objective ethical decision making starting with ‘gather the facts’ (what are they?) and finishing with ‘check your gut’. Well, you can’t get any more contradictory than that and without any discussion of gut (implicit) knowledge in the text. So, your gut tells you whether something is right or wrong, the ultimate in a deontological ethic. Rightness, handed down from god and wrestled in the human unconscious and conscience (not discussed in the text). So, in the end I guess one doesn’t need a curriculum on ethics if one is innately morally qualified and simply needs to ‘check the gut’ to get it right.

Good luck.

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Rob
Dr Rob Long

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Dr Rob Long

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’! - May 24, 2023
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process - May 23, 2023
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble - May 21, 2023
  • Understanding Language Influencing, A Video - May 21, 2023
  • Safetie - May 21, 2023
Dr Rob Long
PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Ethics, Robert Long Tagged With: AIHS, AIHS BoK on Ethics, transdisciplinarity

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. bernardcorden says

    February 19, 2020 at 10:43 AM

    Whenever I watch major sporting events on television I often notice the beguiling advertisements from major sponsors which promote:

    a( Gambling
    b) Fast food
    c) Soft drinks
    d) Financial services and credit

    It’s not too long before I hit the power button on the remote and pick up a book recommended by Dr Long

    I also notice several sponsors on the AIHS website include recruitment agencies. Indeed most health and safety practitioners will have many horrific war stories regarding their interactions with these organisations and their professional ethics, especially privacy and confidentiality.

    Birds of a feather.

    Reply
  2. bernardcorden says

    February 18, 2020 at 8:23 PM

    $ub$tantive evidence $uggest$ the AIH$ i$ al$o rather economical with the truth.

    Reply
  3. safety gear says

    February 18, 2020 at 5:42 PM

    thanks Dr Rob for sharing that

    Reply
  4. Richard Coleman says

    February 18, 2020 at 11:01 AM

    Firstly the disclosure: I am a Board Member of the AIHS and I volunteered to be the Board Champion for the release of the BOK Chapter on Ethics and Professional practice. I’m grateful to the members that voted for me and my Board colleagues who entrusted me with this task.

    As I read the comments it strikes me that they fall into two buckets:
    1. The chapter is poor quality
    2. The AIHS is broken because it won’t formally disavow ‘Zero’

    My view is that this chapter has the potential to take the profession forward in ways that no other chapter has to date. The discussions that I facilitated at both the Sydney and Melbourne were energetic, they focus on key ethical challenges that professionals face and were genuinely developmental. The chapter may not be perfect but it’s clearly written, it deals with issues that we all commonly face, it provides an entry into a domain of knowledge and practice that may people need.
    Accepting for a moment that the premise is correct. Then that issue is at heart an ethical one. The development of the chapter therefore provides a mechanism for a more nuanced discussion about positions that the Institute takes.

    Richard Coleman
    GM HSE
    Laing O’Rourke

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 18, 2020 at 1:13 PM

      Richard, thanks for your contribution and especially acknowledging your identity and connections. I think you have identified 2 of several issues with the BoK on Ethics although much could be written on many other chapters of the BoK too and their worldview. In the case of this particular chapter on ethics it is also problematic because the writers do not acknowledge their own deontological bias and present such a closed ethical paradigm as somehow endorsed as normative. It also endorse some extremely naive notions associated with safety people as somehow innately ethical and making decisions by the gut. Much more could be written about such problems and what such discussion endorses.
      If the industry is to be professional and act professionally it must be far more transparent with such worldviews and own them with some form of justification or, at least acknowledge other worldviews and their validity. It is also interesting that this chapter acknowledges that ethics is ‘the soul of professionalism’ yet it arrives years late and is not chapter 1? Indeed, an indictment of where ethics sits within the industry.
      Having developed and taught ethics in several contexts I was amazed at the nature of the paper and how narrow its focus, I think Safety needs to step much further outside of its closed discipline if it is to develop something more professional. Having said that, I acknowledge the developmental discourse the AIHS attaches to the BoK and hopefully the AIHS value criticism from outside in that nature that it offers a constructive and valid approach from outside of its camp. If the AIHS is to value critical thinking as a mark of professionalism it must learn to embrace such risky conversations.
      The issue of zero is of course much more profound and significant that just a goal or number, from another worldview it is understood as a shibboleth and ideology that now controls the industry so much so, it cannot let go of it. Indeed, it holds the power of a religious artefact and now defines all that is taboo to its boundaries. This sustains the nature of binary oppositional discourse and the identity by poles of such opposition jeopardizing conversation, debate, criticism and dissent. The binary oppositional view of zero unfortunately limits learning and engagement, demonsising politically any criticism.
      The omission of discussion of zero in the BoK is very significant also because zero ideology proclaims there is no other ethical view. There are of course other worldviews to zero but none of this is a discussed in the BoK, quite a significant oversight given the global industry is now deeply wedded to it.
      At this stage of my working life I only work with organizations who will devolve from zero and work with far more humanising discourse and language about risk. I have found such an approach brings great relief from the associations and by-products of zero toxicity.
      Thanks for your open note and happy to discuss or meet personally should you be in canberra some time.
      Rob

      Reply
  5. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    Scotty from marketing here:

    http://visionzero.global/events-and-trainings

    Reply
  6. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    But wait there’s more, straight from the AIHS website (22/08/2018)..…….

    At the conclusion of the event, the International Security Association will launch its VisionZero campaign in Australia. This is the first global campaign to improve safety, health and wellbeing at work; acknowledges that no-one from any nation should lose their life at work.

    https://www.aihs.org.au/events/safety-governance-how-informed-your-board-about-managing-damage

    Reply
  7. Rob long says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    2020 March.
    https://www.safetyinaction.com/event/b65e0c62-6fba-4235-819a-4b7c7c249fbb/summary

    Safety in action conference for a zero incident future. Hmmm, must be old news.

    So many examples of zero trending across the world and Australia it’s overwhelming.

    Reply
  8. Rob Long says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    One of the most unethical things for safety is the way KPIs for safety incentivise and motivate dishonesty. None of this in the BoK on ethics but a major problem for the sector.

    Reply
  9. Matthew Thorne says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    Let us not even mention the International Labour Organisation’s Triple Zero Campaign. “The Vision Zero Fund (VZF) brings together governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, companies, and other stakeholders to jointly advance towards the vision of achieving zero severe and fatal work-related accidents, injuries and diseases in global supply chains.”

    https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/departments-and-offices/governance/labadmin-osh/programmes/vzf/lang–en/index.htm

    Reply
  10. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    The current toll for mine dust lung diseases across Queensland exceeds 130 victims and the AIHS/SIA failed to provide any submissions to the Queensland parliamentary inquiry into black lung or provide any official representation at the numerous public hearings.

    This was raised with the AIHS/SIA on several occasions and the reason proffered was a lack of technical expertise yet somewhat paradoxically it operated a remunerative scheme covering certification of OHS professionals.

    Reply
  11. Pam Pryor says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    I have always said – do something and you leave yourself open to criticism (but the discussion is often worthwhile); do nothing and there is a vacuum. Thanks to all for contributing to the discussion which was initiated and provoked by the OHS BoK chapter on Ethics and Professional Practice. We are obviously achieving our aim of raising the awareness and discussion around ethics on OHS practice.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:38 PM

      Pam, as long as people learn from the validity of the constructive criticism then a ‘good’ has emerged.

      Reply
  12. Rob long says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    January 2020 on myosh and AIHS site
    https://myosh.com/blog/tag/zero-harm/

    Hmm, definitely out of date.

    Reply
    • Admin says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:38 PM

      There was an ad in the employment section of the AIHS website, just a few months ago, for a “Zero Harm Manager”

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 13, 2020 at 8:43 PM

        I love how ‘ethics is the soul of professionalism’ p1. Of the BoK on ethics but is in no curriculum in WHS and got no mention in the Boland curriculum review. Dies that mean Safety has no soul?

        Reply
  13. Rob Long says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    Coming up next week 26 February 2020 a webinar courtesy of the AIHS on zero: https://www.aihs.org.au/events/building-mindful-high-performance-safety-culture
    https://myosh.com/blog/2020/01/21/why-zero-harm-is-not-a-reality/amp/
    All about a lack of belief in zero, how zero could be a reality, just needs right belief. Ahh, more religion in the cult of zero, but sorry talking about zero is ‘baying at the moon’ and behind the times? Indeed!

    Reply
    • Admin says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:38 PM

      They still think that the only negativity toward zero is that it is unachievable – they don’t seem to understand the harm being caused by the methods that are being used to try and achieve it

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 13, 2020 at 6:43 PM

        Neither do they understand it as a symbol or ideology, even though they confess it as so. No comprehension at all of the nature of human unconscious or how symbols work, no idea about the nature of belief even though they talk all the time about belief in zero as the case with this latest AIHS webinar. No understanding at all of binary entrapment and binary opposition, nor that their worldview is locked into behaviourism, cognitivism and materialism. No idea that there are disciplines and worldviews outside of their own that have nothing to do with ‘opinion’ or simply wanting to be contrary. Without such understanding the only recourse is to politicize critiicism, reject learning, close dialogue and put your head in the sand, a perfect approach to non-learning fostered by zero!

        Reply
  14. bernardcorden says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

    The following link entitled “Improving safety in the mining and quarrying sector” is from the Queensland Government DNRME website, which was last updated on 06/02/2020:

    https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/mining-resources/initiatives/safety-reset

    It includes a zero serious harm initiative.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

      2019
      https://www.ehstoday.com/safety-leadership/article/21920265/slc-2019-qa-zero-harm-culture-its-a-journey

      Hmmmm, obviously old news.

      Reply
  15. Matthew Thorne says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:29 PM

    Of all the people in charge of producing this “Book of Knowledge” , only one of them claims to have experience in Ethics. And this person works in the School of Accounting. Peer review from a School of Law. This must surely colour how people write about a subject.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

      Matthew, this amateurish production speaks volumes about the industry and its culture. There will be no change till it drops zero.

      Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

      Hence the map of worldviews. Of course, Safety thinks there is only one!

      Reply
  16. David Clarke says

    February 13, 2020 at 6:29 PM

    Firstly, a public congratulations to the many highly professional contributors to this BOK chapter, which draws very widely on on the issue of ethics from sources around the world, and references an extensive range of reading from very highly regarded writers on ethics. This is an important body of work for health and safety people, because its existence means that there will be many more reflections and discussions about ethics and its role in practice. Secondly, you’re getting way behind-the-times on ‘zero’. Your pet hate has virtually gone away, and you’re baying at the moon. ‘..the industry’ (I assume you mean the profession) is quite diverse, and I suggest that in that diversity it resists trite one-liners. It has now literally been years since there has been widespread usage of the old marketing term ‘zero harm’ in Australia (which is an excellent way to impart in a broad context, the basic idea that no amount of harm is ok) and it was never really the MOST common approach anyway. The profession broadly understands that a marketing term does not necessarily make a health and safety program. But back to the issue! – The conversations about ethics begin. Of that, I am very happy. I suppose in observing those discussions, I will have to live with reading the self-aggrandizing crap well as the good stuff.

    Reply
    • Rob long says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

      David, Happy to provide a detailed critique at any time. Happy to debate the BoK on ethics at any time. Happy to demonstrate the depth of the zero ideology across the safety sector globally at any time.

      The BoK itself does the best condemnation of the sector regarding ethics, with no vision for its inclusion in the curriculum or development of ethical competence for the industry. A shame it was never honest about its bias or intentions.

      Reply
    • Barry Spud says

      February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

      https://www.bmd.com.au/the-bmd-way/zero-harm/

      https://www.miningreview.com/news/zero-harm-mining-industry/

      https://www.downergroup.com/achieving-zero-harm-through-active-leadership

      https://www.bhp.com/investor-centre/sustainability-report-2018/

      https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/book/south-australia-zero-harm-project

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 13, 2020 at 6:33 PM

        The Queensland regulator has been locked into zero harm for 20 years as was highlighted by the Brady Review. Hardly some by-line or behind the news concept. The AIHS are still signed up to it and hope that the elephant in the room would shrink. It isn’t, if anything it continues to dominate the global safety sector.

        Reply
  17. Rob Long says

    February 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM

    One of the most unethical things for safety is the way KPIs for safety incentivise and motivate dishonesty. None of this in the BoK on ethics but a major problem for the sector.

    Reply
  18. bernardcorden says

    February 9, 2020 at 8:51 AM

    The current toll for mine dust lung diseases across Queensland exceeds 130 victims and the AIHS/SIA failed to provide any submissions to the Queensland parliamentary inquiry into black lung or provide any official representation at the numerous public hearings.

    This was raised with the AIHS/SIA on several occasions and the reason proffered was a lack of technical expertise yet somewhat paradoxically it operated a remunerative scheme covering certification of OHS professionals.

    Reply
  19. Pam Pryor says

    February 9, 2020 at 7:55 AM

    I have always said – do something and you leave yourself open to criticism (but the discussion is often worthwhile); do nothing and there is a vacuum. Thanks to all for contributing to the discussion which was initiated and provoked by the OHS BoK chapter on Ethics and Professional Practice. We are obviously achieving our aim of raising the awareness and discussion around ethics on OHS practice.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 9, 2020 at 8:10 AM

      Pam, as long as people learn from the validity of the constructive criticism then a ‘good’ has emerged.

      Reply
  20. Rob Long says

    February 9, 2020 at 6:29 AM

    Coming up next week 26 February 2020 a webinar courtesy of the AIHS on zero: https://www.aihs.org.au/events/building-mindful-high-performance-safety-culture
    https://myosh.com/blog/2020/01/21/why-zero-harm-is-not-a-reality/amp/
    All about a lack of belief in zero, how zero could be a reality, just needs right belief. Ahh, more religion in the cult of zero, but sorry talking about zero is ‘baying at the moon’ and behind the times? Indeed!

    Reply
    • Admin says

      February 9, 2020 at 7:11 AM

      They still think that the only negativity toward zero is that it is unachievable – they don’t seem to understand the harm being caused by the methods that are being used to try and achieve it

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 9, 2020 at 7:45 AM

        Neither do they understand it as a symbol or ideology, even though they confess it as so. No comprehension at all of the nature of human unconscious or how symbols work, no idea about the nature of belief even though they talk all the time about belief in zero as the case with this latest AIHS webinar. No understanding at all of binary entrapment and binary opposition, nor that their worldview is locked into behaviourism, cognitivism and materialism. No idea that there are disciplines and worldviews outside of their own that have nothing to do with ‘opinion’ or simply wanting to be contrary. Without such understanding the only recourse is to politicize critiicism, reject learning, close dialogue and put your head in the sand, a perfect approach to non-learning fostered by zero!

        Reply
  21. bernardcorden says

    February 8, 2020 at 9:28 PM

    But wait there’s more, straight from the AIHS website (22/08/2018)..…….

    At the conclusion of the event, the International Security Association will launch its VisionZero campaign in Australia. This is the first global campaign to improve safety, health and wellbeing at work; acknowledges that no-one from any nation should lose their life at work.

    https://www.aihs.org.au/events/safety-governance-how-informed-your-board-about-managing-damage

    Reply
  22. bernardcorden says

    February 8, 2020 at 8:08 PM

    Scotty from marketing here:

    http://visionzero.global/events-and-trainings

    Reply
  23. Matthew Thorne says

    February 8, 2020 at 7:54 PM

    Let us not even mention the International Labour Organisation’s Triple Zero Campaign. “The Vision Zero Fund (VZF) brings together governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, companies, and other stakeholders to jointly advance towards the vision of achieving zero severe and fatal work-related accidents, injuries and diseases in global supply chains.”

    https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/departments-and-offices/governance/labadmin-osh/programmes/vzf/lang–en/index.htm

    Reply
  24. Rob long says

    February 8, 2020 at 7:33 PM

    January 2020 on myosh and AIHS site
    https://myosh.com/blog/tag/zero-harm/

    Hmm, definitely out of date.

    Reply
    • Admin says

      February 8, 2020 at 7:41 PM

      There was an ad in the employment section of the AIHS website, just a few months ago, for a “Zero Harm Manager”

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 8, 2020 at 7:58 PM

        I love how ‘ethics is the soul of professionalism’ p1. Of the BoK on ethics but is in no curriculum in WHS and got no mention in the Boland curriculum review. Dies that mean Safety has no soul?

        Reply
  25. Rob long says

    February 8, 2020 at 7:17 PM

    2020 March.
    https://www.safetyinaction.com/event/b65e0c62-6fba-4235-819a-4b7c7c249fbb/summary

    Safety in action conference for a zero incident future. Hmmm, must be old news.

    So many examples of zero trending across the world and Australia it’s overwhelming.

    Reply
  26. bernardcorden says

    February 8, 2020 at 6:31 PM

    The following link entitled “Improving safety in the mining and quarrying sector” is from the Queensland Government DNRME website, which was last updated on 06/02/2020:

    https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/mining-resources/initiatives/safety-reset

    It includes a zero serious harm initiative.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 8, 2020 at 7:10 PM

      2019
      https://www.ehstoday.com/safety-leadership/article/21920265/slc-2019-qa-zero-harm-culture-its-a-journey

      Hmmmm, obviously old news.

      Reply
  27. David Clarke says

    February 8, 2020 at 5:32 PM

    Firstly, a public congratulations to the many highly professional contributors to this BOK chapter, which draws very widely on on the issue of ethics from sources around the world, and references an extensive range of reading from very highly regarded writers on ethics. This is an important body of work for health and safety people, because its existence means that there will be many more reflections and discussions about ethics and its role in practice. Secondly, you’re getting way behind-the-times on ‘zero’. Your pet hate has virtually gone away, and you’re baying at the moon. ‘..the industry’ (I assume you mean the profession) is quite diverse, and I suggest that in that diversity it resists trite one-liners. It has now literally been years since there has been widespread usage of the old marketing term ‘zero harm’ in Australia (which is an excellent way to impart in a broad context, the basic idea that no amount of harm is ok) and it was never really the MOST common approach anyway. The profession broadly understands that a marketing term does not necessarily make a health and safety program. But back to the issue! – The conversations about ethics begin. Of that, I am very happy. I suppose in observing those discussions, I will have to live with reading the self-aggrandizing crap well as the good stuff.

    Reply
    • Barry Spud says

      February 8, 2020 at 6:33 PM

      https://www.bmd.com.au/the-bmd-way/zero-harm/

      https://www.miningreview.com/news/zero-harm-mining-industry/

      https://www.downergroup.com/achieving-zero-harm-through-active-leadership

      https://www.bhp.com/investor-centre/sustainability-report-2018/

      https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/book/south-australia-zero-harm-project

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        February 8, 2020 at 6:57 PM

        The Queensland regulator has been locked into zero harm for 20 years as was highlighted by the Brady Review. Hardly some by-line or behind the news concept. The AIHS are still signed up to it and hope that the elephant in the room would shrink. It isn’t, if anything it continues to dominate the global safety sector.

        Reply
    • Rob long says

      February 8, 2020 at 6:54 PM

      David, Happy to provide a detailed critique at any time. Happy to debate the BoK on ethics at any time. Happy to demonstrate the depth of the zero ideology across the safety sector globally at any time.

      The BoK itself does the best condemnation of the sector regarding ethics, with no vision for its inclusion in the curriculum or development of ethical competence for the industry. A shame it was never honest about its bias or intentions.

      Reply
  28. Matthew Thorne says

    February 8, 2020 at 2:29 PM

    Of all the people in charge of producing this “Book of Knowledge” , only one of them claims to have experience in Ethics. And this person works in the School of Accounting. Peer review from a School of Law. This must surely colour how people write about a subject.

    Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 8, 2020 at 3:07 PM

      Matthew, this amateurish production speaks volumes about the industry and its culture. There will be no change till it drops zero.

      Reply
    • Rob Long says

      February 9, 2020 at 2:17 PM

      Hence the map of worldviews. Of course, Safety thinks there is only one!

      Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,521 other subscribers

Recent Comments

  • Rob Long on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Chris. on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Pierre Joubert on Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • James on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Admin on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

RECOMMENDED READING

viral post – iso 45003 and what it cannot do

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe

The KISS of Death in Safety

Is Your Safety World Too Small?

You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

When Safety (Zero) is Abusive

Hands Up the Best Safety Fraud!

Communicating Professionally in Risk

How NOT to be Professional in Safety

How NOT to do Anything About Culture in Building and Construction

Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS, CHECKISTS, REGISTERS, TEMPLATES and APPS
  • Safety Acronyms

Recent Posts

  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • My Story is Better than Yours
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process
  • The Unconscious and the Soap Dispenser
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble
  • Understanding Language Influencing, A Video
  • Safetie
  • You are NOT the Sum of Safety
  • Update on SPoR in India, Brazil and Europe
  • It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Safety at the Margins
  • Research Basics for Safety
  • We Need Communities and They Need Us
  • Researching Within The Safety Echo Chamber
  • Confirmation Bias, Risk and Being Offensive
  • Lemmings for Lemmings in Leadership and Risk
  • Expertise by Regurgitation and Re-Badging
  • Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • Can There Be Other Valid Worldviews Than Safety?
  • Evaluating Value by the Value of What You Don’t Know
  • Reality vs Theory, The Binary Divide
  • No Paradigm Shift with BBS
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Is Your Safety World Too Small?
  • What Does Safety Achieve?
  • In Praise of Balance in Risk and the Threat of Extremism
  • We are all equal
  • You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • What in the (Risk & Safety) World is Imagination?
  • iCue Engagement Process
  • SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand
  • For the Monarchists of Safety
  • The Sully Effect
  • All Things Must Pass in Risk
  • Scapegoating and Safety
  • Understanding Habit, Habituation and Change
  • Don’t Mention the War
  • Safety in Design for Who by Who?
  • Beyond ‘What We Do Around Here’
  • Asking the Wrong Questions
  • When Safety (Zero) is Abusive
  • Mandala as a Method for Tackling an Ethic of Risk (a Video)
  • Safety Cosmetics
  • Visualising the EHS Role
  • Towards Dumb
  • Workshops with Dr Long – Vienna, Austria 26-30 June 2023
  • Visual, Verbal and Relational Mapping in Risk Assessment
  • Abduction in Risk and Safety
  • Creating Myths and Rituals in Safety
  • The Safe Christmas Psychosis

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

The Religion of Safety

Risky Conversations, The Law, Social Psychology and Risk

Who Said We Don’t Need Systems?

Incrementalism, Catastrophism and All That’s In-between

Out of your (Unconscious) Mind

Holistic Responses to Mental Health

Critical Thinking and Questioning in Safety

No Soft Skills in Safety

SPoR Introductory Workshop Series April 2020

Second Student Group Social Psychology of Risk

The Tyranny of Absolutes

Safety-1, Safety-2, Safety-3

The Safety Control Delusion

Social Psychology Applied to the Discernment of Risk

Safety Myopia

OnLine Learning Modules with CLLR

Beware of Hazardous ‘OINTMENT’

It’s a Great Goal, it Just Doesn’t Work

Report on SPoR Convention 2018

What Can Halloween tell us About Safety?

My Journey with SPoR

Zero Vision but Purchase Insurance

A Culture of Care (and sackings…)

I’ve got a feeling this isn’t right, but…..

Framing Your World

The Psychology of Blaming in Safety

The Mythic Symbology of Safety

Can There Be Other Valid Worldviews Than Safety?

I Wasn’t Thinking Mr Spock

Are You a Safety Fool?

How to Do the Best Risk Assessment

Its All In The Sign

Risky Conversations Book Launch in Perth

How is the unconscious in communication critical for understanding and managing risk?

Chronic Unease is Not Enough

Affirming Chance

Why Have Some Freedom in Safety When a Dose of Fear and Guilt Will Do?

Safety and Risk Culture Cloud

Work-Life and Risk, Feminine Perspectives

Is there “Common Sense” in safety?

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,521 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?


WHAT IS PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY

x
x