Originally posted on March 27, 2021 @ 3:24 PM
Zero is not a Target or Vision, it’s a Language/Discourse
Here is a podcast on the 1% safer concept (https://www.safeopedia.com/one-percent-safer-through-vision-zero-and-marginal-gains/2/8831) and it provides a clear insight into the ideology of zero and 1%.
How fascinating this strained idea that there is a distinction between setting zero as a target, a goal or a ‘vision’. The ideology of zero no matter how it is presented is a language and embeds a discourse (https://www.routledge.com/An-Introduction-to-Discourse-Analysis-Theory-and-Method/Gee/p/book/9780415725569 ). If you entertain the idea of zero ideology then the assumption and frame for thinking is numeric and in denial of fallibility. Just listen to this podcast and the continued roll out of metrics and numerics. It’s all about the reduction of numbers. You hear no language of: personhood, care, helping and ethical practice.
And here is the claim: ‘we can get 1% safer through zero vision!’ and just how does that work? How does the language of zero inspire and motivate anyone? How does an ethic of numerics connect with people who don’t give a s*#t about counting and just want to work safely? There is indeed no connection between zero vision and safe work. It’s a language used to spruik a marketing campaign, it’s not a strategy (https://safetyrisk.net/essential-elements-for-a-safety-strategy/). It’s marketing that attributes meaning to a number. There is as much value in this propaganda as: mums for safety, meerkats, safety sophie, Hazardman, pickles or any of the other of the meaningless campaigns that show that Safety doesn’t know what to do.
So, by the time you get 10 minutes into this podcast you realize it’s all about the mythology of measurement. The focus is on performance and measurement mythology, so nothing different here, just more traditional safety.
The packaging of ‘nudge theory’ is rolled out which of course has been discredited (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320969370_Nudge_Concept_Effectiveness_and_Ethics ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305931068_The_Afflictions_of_Behavioral_Economics_Nudge ; https://hbr.org/2016/04/why-nudging-your-customers-can-backfire ), and the podcast even raises the pejorative notion of the ‘subconscious’. Of course typical of Safety, the unconscious is not a topic for discussion nor the by-products and trade offs of zero/1% ideology. However, for the assumptions of this presentation ‘nudge theory’ serves the purpose of attributing value to minor marginal ‘gains’ (whatever that means).
The other language common in this podcast is the behaviourist frame. Numbers, performance and behaviours, the darlings of traditional safety. One of the speakers describes zero vision as ‘an emotional door opener’. Astounding, all my research shows that this ideology is the most divisive idea in the safety industry. Most safety practitioners simply don’t believe it (https://safetyrisk.net/take-the-zero-survey/ ). Safety people remain silent in the face of zero ideology because they know it is the mantra of management and they don’t want to lose their job. Still never mind, for the purposes of this podcast any unsubstantiated attribution to zero is OK.
By the time you get to the middle of the podcast the assertion that zero vision is different than target zero becomes the topic for discussion. Then out comes the binary opposition argument of what kind of language can a CEO speak to people, all under the assumption that zero is the only language to be spoken. (How funny that silence on zero is never entertained).
Then one of the speakers says he’s a realist and knows that zero can never be reached and then just proceeds with the binary argument that there is no other language to be used – this from people with no expertise in linguistics or semiotics. So, outcomes the tired old language of the straw man, set up a CEO who has to tell people there will be injuries. More infantile logic under the binary assumption of measurement discourse. These projections in argument are binary, immature and lack sophistication, perfect for zero ideology. It is by this stage that the podcast affirms that 1% safe and zero vision are the same thing.
When you language and ideology is zero, there can be no envisioning (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/envisioning-risk-seeing-vision-and-meaning-in-risk/). When your vision is zero all that can follow is traditional safety.
Once you get past the idea of a 1% pledge the question of turning an idea into action is raised. And after all the discussion it remains an idea (https://onepercentsafer.com/the-idea/) not a strategy. There is nothing connected to this discussion about what works. Or go to the 1% safer website and there it is numbers, numbers, numbers. Apparently this is a movement and by assertion it works? Like zero ideology there is actually nothing different in all of this that one can do! Go to the global zero site and try to find something different that works, it doesn’t exist. Everything is just more of the same, traditional safety: counting, systems, policing and injury rates. It’s a marketing campaign. Make a pledge and something will happen.
If you want to actually do something that works beyond an idea and want to move away from zero so that safety will improve (https://safetyrisk.net/moving-away-from-zero-so-that-safety-improves/), perhaps a different book is for you: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/
Rob Long says
The language of zero and discourse of perfectionism drives the opposite of what is intended. Research shows that those who use the language of zero actually have less safe outcomes.
lukmanq8 says
I am still using Zero Accident as one of our safety targets. Zero means 100% achievement. Very interesting thought Dr. Rob, always.
Admin says
Have you thought about what the term “accident” actually means?
Rob Long says
Interestingly, I have been sent a number of emails that question the ethical conduct of this so called ‘1% safer foundation’ and the management of the book, seems that there is a story underneath all of this that is not being told. If any of this is true then is quite consistent with a lack of ethics in safety.
I was asked to write for this book but refused. Glad I did so.
Bernard Corden says
The 1% Safer Foundation is pure telemarketing and has been furtively implemented to attenuate much of the bad press emanating from the zero harm ideology. I find it quite surprising that IOSH did not resort to the Prince of Darkness, Peter Mandelson to endorse the movement.
I have just finished reading It Works and it is a fascinating collaboration but I cannot envision any of the pseudo-academics affiliated to our peak safety body or its unctuous acolytes embracing a SPoR worldview.
The word social ensures it will be excluded from any corporate strategy. Just look at Covid, in the community controls include social distancing but in the workplace it becomes physical distancing.
In accordance with Shareholder Theory or the Friedman Doctrine the only social responsibility of a corporation is to accrue profits for its shareholders and the current chairperson with Safe Work Australia is a non-executive director with Wesfarmers…..There is no such thing as society.
Men of power have no time to read, yet men who do not read are unfit for power – Michael Foot.
Michael Foot was a humanitarian pilgrim and the architect behind the Robens Report following the Aberfan disaster in 1966.