One of the myths of the so called S2 group is the shifting of blame from individuals to systems. What we see in this group, is an obsession with blame in silly slogans like ‘blame fixes nothing’. Then somehow by magic, things are fixed by shifting blame from individuals to systems. This is what this group does best. It reframes problems with spin and semantics as if no-one will pick up that all that is happening is a shift in discourse.
Naughty blame, lets eliminate it.
Of course, blame can be damaging and unproductive if it is undertaken poorly but, to demonise blame as eternally bad, is a false narrative.
Naughty blame, lets eliminate it.
The slogan ‘blame fixes nothing’ concocted by an academic with no expertise in ethics, calling it ‘principles’, seems to be enough to seduce an industry that a slogan changes something.
Oh dear, naughty blame, let’s shift it onto systems and everything will now be better.
Unfortunately, this is NOT how the law, Regulation and reality work. A principle has to be a fundamental truth and this slogan is not true. We know that a PCBU is held responsible for ensuring a safe workplace (https://safetyrisk.net/the-pcbu-the-law-blame-reality-and-the-con/). The truth is, blame fixes things (https://safetyrisk.net/blame-fixes-many-things-and-the-slogan-trap/ ).
If you re-project blame onto Systems, how can Systems respond to accountability? Surely, whoever developed the system or manages the system has to be the one to invoke change. Systems don’t change themselves, that’s why we have hierarchical structures and PCBUs in organisations to that people are responsible for the way a System behaves. Archetypes may have a force and energy of their own but just like AI, they have no moral responsibility that is coupled to that energy.
When we know about the law and a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) we see the word ‘person’ at the front of the discourse. A system is NOT a person and shifting blame from a person to a system, solves nothing.
The suggestion that things are fixed by shifting blame in this way is just semantic smoke and mirrors. Just do a little Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of any of the spin from HOP and you will quickly see the problem.
When something goes wrong, the Regulator will come looking for the PCBU not the System. Don’t fall for the spin of HOP but rather develop better skills to how blame is managed. Learning how to manage blame and develop the resilience of people to receive blame, is the key to understanding how blame works (https://safetyrisk.net/the-meaning-of-blame-thinking-beyond-the-spin-and-slogans/ ).
If you want to understand this more you can write here: admin@spor.com.au
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Adversarialism and the Politicisation of Safety - March 9, 2026
- AI Standards and No Ethical Standards for AI - March 9, 2026
- Safety Superhero Academy! - March 9, 2026
- Faith in AI and AI Safety - March 8, 2026
- Say Something that Makes Sense - March 7, 2026
Admin says
Funny how safety will readily take the “blame” when things are going well……its never the system then?????
Rob Long says
It’s all selective to suit the myths of Safety and the money such spin can earn. and, somehow by magic, once the spin and slogans are spoken and someone gets sacked its all BS.