Safety continues to struggle with the necessity of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/ ) in ALL human orientation and action. In its quest for perfection (zero) traditional Safety obsesses about error and doesn’t know what to do with it. Accordingly, it has little idea of what to do about blame, responsibility, accountability and justice. This is both an ethical and philosophical problem for an industry obsessed with injury rates and harm as the definition of safety.
We see this obsession with error and blame (and little idea of what to do about it) in most discourse in traditional safety. The HOP and Dekker obsession with ‘blame fixes nothing’ and the religious doctrine of atonement (Dekker) demonstrates a theologically traditional approach to Justice. How fascinating that Dekker, with no expertise in theology, brings a mis-understanding of atonement (as well as confession and repentance) into discourse on forgiveness and error (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11507443/Z). But this is the way of safety, expert in everything, in its own cocoon in theology.
It is no wonder Safety so easily ‘drifts’ into theology when it doesn’t know what to do about fallibility, error and death. It’s so easy to drift into theology when Zero is deified and perfection is made a goal. We see this most obvious in the ‘Spirit of Zero, Blink of an Eye’ Apocalyptic video on Zero (https://safetyrisk.net/no-reckoning-for-zero/). But also, in the so-called Innovation Safety Science lab (zero as a moral goal).
There are many theologies of atonement, suffering, repentance and forgiveness that do NOT match the bias of Dekker and traditional safety. And, these theologies make much better sense than the concoction and assumption of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). If you are going to bring theology into safety, it might at least be good to do some theological homework. What a strange thing to import theological discourse into safety and then propose that the outcome can be considered ‘secular’. ‘Safety saves’ indeed (https://safetyrisk.net/the-doctrine-of-atonement-for-safety-people/).
One of the things Safety does so well is, venture into space with no expertise, proclaim some absolute and watch the lemmings follow (https://safetyrisk.net/fallibility-realised-is-not-drift-into-failure/). Moreso, because something is declared by insular Safety as a ‘truth’, it is assumed that there is no other view, even when some say they have a ‘new view’. There is no ‘new view’ when the paradigm and methodology doesn’t change (https://safetyrisk.net/without-change-in-paradigm-there-will-be-no-sustainable-change-in-safety/).
Or if one deconstructs Heinrich, Reason or Dekker or any other proposed guru of safety (https://www.awa.asn.au/resources/latest-news/business/workplace/hard-hats-and-hi-vis-australian-safety-culture-focussing-on-all-the-wrong-things) one is somehow anti-safety.
Of course, we already know that ‘blame fixes nothing’ is a silly idiom and a slogan, not a principle (https://safetyrisk.net/blame-fixes-many-things-and-the-slogan-trap/). One would need to articulate a clear ethic of risk if one was to declare such an idiom as ‘a principle’. One might even expect such an ethic of risk would make sense of fallibility, imperfection, personhood and mortality. Alas, in non-safety-differently, there is no such articulation of an ethic of risk. And so, what ends up is a grab bag of slogans and no method, with ‘aspirations’ for ‘just culture’.
Even if one understands atonement as a political theology, the idea of ‘fairness’ in atonement or ‘making things right’ doesn’t make sense. And what would this ‘rightness’ look like? Yet another deontological assumption as Safety’s desired ethic?
There are valid alternative views to those proposed in traditional Safety towards error. There are other theologies than those proposed by non-theologians towards fallibility, repentance, atonement and forgiveness. Even a casual read of Kierkegaard, Ellul, Brueggemann or Moltmann would turn such ideas of ‘rightness’ in atonement on its head. And, whose version of ‘rightness’ is that anyway?
I wonder how long it will take for Safety to start conflating error and failure with sin? Hold on, I wonder what the following are about?
7 Costly Cins
Repair and Repent (on the M1 JV in Melbourne)
Safety Saves (Safestart)
It is not surprising how safety makes the secular sacred (https://safetyrisk.net/making-the-secular-sacred-in-safety/) and uses the language of salvation so easily. So many rules in safety are described as ‘commandments’ and ‘cardinal’ rules’.
You don’t have to look very far in safety to see how it sacralises itself. No wonder Safety plays ‘god’ on others.
But why would traditional safety be interested in an ethic of risk? Why would Safety seek a view outside of itself? Why would traditional safety seek a Transdisciplinary view? Why would Safety seek another paradigm outside of its own confirmation bias? Why would Safety seek a non-deontological view of ethics? (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-is-not-a-duty/). Why wouldn’t you just want a ‘new view’ with no shift in paradigm? (https://safetyrisk.net/a-comparison-of-safety-paradigms/)
If you are interested in a different view to traditional safety there is a positive alternative, that involves a positive paradigm shift. If you want to know more about this alternative:
You can download free books here: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
You can do the free Introduction to SPoR here: https://vimeo.com/showcase/4233556
You can email for coaching here: admin@spor.com.au
You can watch free videos here: https://vimeo.com/cllr
Or you can come to the SPoR Convention in September: https://spor.com.au/spor-convention-2025/
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- The First Rule of the Titan, Don’t Talk About Safety Culture - June 15, 2025
- You Spell the Devil L-T-I and God P-P-E - June 15, 2025
- Meaningless Non-Vision in Safety - June 15, 2025
- Propositions to Not Live By - June 15, 2025
- 51 Stories in Culture, To Live and To Be – Free Download - June 14, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below