Skip to main content
IOSH Magazine: Safety, Health and Wellbeing in the world of work - return to the homepage IOSH Magaazine logo
  • Visit IOSH Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit @ioshmagazine on Twitter
  • Visit IOSH Magazine on LinkedIn
Gender equality
Practice meets perfect
May/June 2023 issue

Main navigation

  • Home
    • Browse previous issues
    • Member accolades
    • Member tributes
  • Health
    • Mental health and wellbeing
      • Bullying
      • Drugs and alcohol
      • Mental health
      • Stress
      • Wellbeing
    • Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
      • Ergonomics
      • Manual handling
      • Vibration
    • Occupational cancer
      • Asbestos
      • Hazardous substances
      • Radiation
  • Safety
    • Incident management
      • Chemicals
      • Electricity
      • Fire
      • First aid
      • Slips and trips
    • Non-health related fatalities
      • Road safety
      • Work at height
    • Risk management
      • Confined spaces
      • Disability
      • Legionella
      • Lifting operations
      • Lone workers
      • Noise
      • Personal protective equipment
      • Violence at work
      • Work equipment
      • Workplace transport
  • Management
    • Human factors
      • Accident reduction
      • Behavioural safety
      • Control of contractors
      • Migrant workers
      • Older workers
      • Reporting
      • Safe systems of work
      • Sickness absence
      • Young workers
    • Leadership and management
      • Employee involvement
      • Management systems
    • Management standards
      • ISO 45001
      • ISO 45003
    • Planning
      • Assurance
      • Compliance
      • Emergency planning
      • Insurance
    • Rehabilitation
      • Personal injury
      • Return to work
    • Strategy
      • Corporate governance
      • Performance/results
      • Regulation/enforcement
      • Reputation
    • Sustainability
      • Human capital and Vision Zero
  • Skills
    • Communication
    • Personal performance
      • Achieving Fellowship
      • Career development
      • Competencies
      • Personal development
      • Professional skills
      • Qualifications
    • Stakeholder management
    • Working with others
      • Leadership
      • Future Leaders
  • Jobs
  • Covid-19
  • Knowledge Bank
    • Back to basics
    • Book club
    • Infographics
    • Podcast
    • Reports
    • Webinars
    • Videos
  • Products & Services
  • Management
    • Human factors
      • Sickness absence
      • Accident reduction
      • Behavioural safety
      • Control of contractors
      • Migrant workers
      • Older workers
      • Reporting
      • Safe systems of work
      • Young workers
    • Leadership and management
      • Employee involvement
      • Leadership
      • Management systems
    • Management standards
      • ISO 45001
      • ISO 45003
    • Planning
      • Assurance
      • Compliance
      • Emergency planning
      • Insurance
    • Strategy
      • Corporate governance
      • Performance/results
      • Regulation/enforcement
      • Reputation
    • Sustainability
      • Human capital and Vision Zero
  • Health
    • COVID-19
    • Mental health and wellbeing
      • Bullying
      • Drugs and alcohol
      • Mental health
      • Stress
      • Wellbeing
    • Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
      • Ergonomics
      • Manual handling
      • Vibration
    • Occupational cancer
      • Asbestos
      • Hazardous substances
      • Radiation
  • Safety
    • Incident management
      • Chemicals
      • Electricity
      • Fire
      • First aid
      • Slips and trips
    • Non-health related fatalities
      • Road safety
      • Work at height
    • Risk management
      • Confined spaces
      • Disability
      • Legionella
      • Lifting operations
      • Lone workers
      • Noise
      • Personal protective equipment
      • Violence at work
      • Work equipment
      • Workplace transport
  • Skills
    • Communication
    • Personal performance
      • Career development
      • Competencies
      • Personal development
      • Qualifications
      • Professional skills
      • Achieving Fellowship
    • Stakeholder management
    • Working with others
      • Leadership
      • Future Leaders
  • Transport and logistics
  • Third sector
  • Retail
  • Mining and quarrying
  • Rail
  • Rehabilitation
    • Personal injury
    • Return to work
  • Utilities
  • Manufacturing and engineering
  • Construction
  • Sector: IOSH Branch
    • Sector: Northern Ireland
    • Sector: Midland
    • Sector: Merseyside
    • Sector: Manchester and North West Districts
    • Sector: Ireland East
    • Sector: Ireland
    • Sector: Edinburgh
    • Sector: Desmond-South Munster
    • Sector: Qatar
    • Sector: Oman
    • Singapore
    • Sector: South Coast
    • Sector: South Wales
    • Sector: Thames Valley
    • Sector: Tyne and Wear
    • Sector: UAE
    • Sector: West of Scotland
    • Sector: Yorkshire
  • Healthcare
  • Sector: Fire
  • Sector: Financial/general services
  • Sector: Energy
  • Education
  • Sector: Communications and media
  • Chemicals
  • Sector: Central government
  • Catering and leisure
  • Agriculture and forestry
  • Sector: Local government
  • Sector: IOSH Group
    • Sector: Financial Services
    • Sector: Sports Grounds and Events
    • Rural industries
    • Sector: railway
    • Public Services
    • Sector: Offshore
    • Sector: Hazardous Industries
    • Sector: Food and Drink
    • Sector: Fire Risk Management
    • Education
    • Construction
    • Sector: Aviation and Aerospace
Quick links:
  • Home
  • IOSH Magazine Issues
  • Sept/Oct 2020
Features
Accident reduction
Leadership
Performance/results

The big debate: Safety Differently

Open-access content Dr Dominic Cooper — Wednesday 9th September 2020
From the archive:  Just so you know, this article is more than 2 years old.
web_p51-53_Managing-safety--Prism-of-light--Getty--164210733.png

Image credit | Getty

 Dr Dominic Cooper CFIOSH argues that the ideological new take on Safety Differently raises questions.

Should companies cease to manage safety, ceding all control of it to the workforce? This ‘New View’ is based on the premise that traditional OSH (Safety I) treats people as problems to be controlled, arguing ‘people should have complete autonomy over their work and be viewed as essential contributors to solutions, as they possess adaptive capacity to cope with problems at the sharp end’.

But its claim appears to be that the workforce knows best when it comes to managing safety. Indeed, Safety Differently states: ‘It is time for Safety Anarchists: people who trust people more than process, who rely on horizontally coordinating experiences and innovations, who push back against petty rules and coercive compliance, and who help recover the dignity and expertise of human work.’

While most OSH professionals don’t like anarchy, we would – and do – advocate and encourage employee engagement in safety. And this is underpinned by the law – at least in the UK, EU, US, Australia and New Zealand. How many follow the participation laws is a different debate but, in principle, workers should already be involved in safety.

A costly approach?

The real question is whether this ‘state of anarchy and disorder’ could deliver a safe workplace. When people have safety decision-making freedom, evidence shows the risk of a fatality rises to about one per 100 exposures. Vessel-masters as sole decision-makers in the deep-sea fishing industry might chase the fish in ever-treacherous conditions, resulting in lives lost. But when formal safety structures are implemented and followed on such vessels, the death rate halves. The contrast and potential impact of New View versus traditional philosophies should not be taken lightly.

The argument in John Green’s article ‘Leading light’ that ‘safety should be seen as the capacity of the organisation to get things right, rather than simply the absence of things that go wrong’ appears to be based on Hollnagel’s Safety II premise, which states: ‘The presence of positive capacities can help assure a system’s continued functioning even under varying circumstances, so that the number of intended outcomes is maximised.’

However, this concept is based not on OSH but on resilience engineering, which is concerned with operating as close as possible to the boundaries of failure without falling over. In other words, Safety II’s philosophy of pushing the envelope is diametrically opposed to Safety I’s ‘defences-in-depth’ principles.

Even if a company does things right 99% of the time, one person will still get hurt for every 1000 risk exposures

The right/wrong debate

The traditional focus on what goes wrong is partly due to regulators’ requirements (for example the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974) and partly because companies want to monitor the effectiveness of any risk controls, provide lessons to avoid repeat incidents, trend important safety issues, and provide real-time monitoring of their safety culture. We also know that locating and fixing negative aspects of safety can improve associated management systems and deliver sizeable returns on investment.

Though looking at what goes right provides a different perspective, it is not necessarily any better than focusing on what goes wrong. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission demonstrated, for example, that analysing positive or negative features of the same system often produces the same result, yet analysing the positive takes longer, so is less efficient.

People also find it easier to agree what failure rather than success is in any given situation. Research in the Australian construction industry examining the use of positive performance indicators in OSH since 1994 found that injuries did not reduce.

Even if a company does things right 99% of the time, one person will still get hurt for every 1000 risk exposures. It only takes one unsafe behaviour for someone to fall from a roof and die.

Necessary bureaucracy

The principle that safety should be ‘an ethical responsibility, not a bureaucratic activity’ suggests the New View approach sees safety practices as coercive. Yet it doesn’t seem to consider that rules and safety systems might enable and help people in their work.

By necessity, some elements of a safety management system are bureaucratic in order to help companies meet regulatory requirements – such as standard operating procedures – while others are enabling. It’s important not to over-emphasise ‘heavy-handed’ bureaucratic practices, since bureaucracy and documented procedures have brought progress, avoided recurrent mistakes and encouraged best practice.

Procedures can also have positive psychological effects on employees in the clarity they offer. Of course, rule effectiveness depends on a link to the desired outcomes and on people understanding their purpose.

Numbers matter

The Safety Differently New View involves using mindset and philosophy changes to guide the next stages of safety development – yet it is silent about injury reduction. Three decades ago, I was asked constantly whether behavioural safety reduced injuries: I could say yes, and prove it. So, I asked the same question of the New View approach. Without peer-reviewed scientific evidence, I viewed corporate sustainability reports (CSRs) of companies known for taking this approach.

They appeared to show either plateaued accident frequency rates, variable effects in fatalities or lost-time incidents, repeated annual increases in serious injuries and fatalities, or in one case a doubling of incident rates.

Meanwhile, other companies adopting a more traditional safety philosophy have reduced fatalities by 80% within three years.

These CSRs reinforce the view that incident and injury reduction must remain the central focus of OSH practice and research. They also raise ethical questions about whether the acceptance of danger on the shop floor within New View companies is normalised.

Tried and tested

IOSH and the global OSH profession need to refocus on evidence-based solutions. Britain has reduced minor injuries by about 66% over the past 32 years, while serious injuries and fatalities have plateaued. The ideologies that have emerged recently, such as resilience, mindfulness, mental health and Safety Differently, are not supported by scientific evidence that shows they reduce the problem. Evidence-based solutions – such as behavioural safety – are made ‘lean’ to reduce time and costs. The poor results, in turn, create the climate for a never-ending supply of untested solutions sold as the next magic bullet. Readers should reconsider John Green’s article, study the evidence and make up their own minds.  

Dominic Cooper PhD is a Chartered Fellow of IOSH who has recently been elected to the IOSH Council and a professional member of the American Society of Safety Professionals. 

John Green

John Green responds: Moving forward

It’s doubtful if Dominic and I will agree on how safety should be created and managed in organisations, but I think it’s important that readers get the opportunity to judge for themselves the respective merits of the different approaches. It is not unusual for a new or different approach to be misunderstood, and Dominic’s piece misunderstands the intentions, principles and practices of Safety Differently, Safety II or the New View.

We are not anarchists (although Sidney Dekker did title his book The safety anarchist), but we do believe that the bureaucracy has gone too far with rules for even the most trivial risk. This diminishes the importance of those rules that really matter and makes the system unworkable simply because of the volume of paperwork. Safety Differently focuses on high-risk tasks, its practitioners obsess about how we go to work in high-risk situations, and much of our day is spent in ensuring alignment between how work is actually carried out (work as done) and how that work had been planned and laid out in the associated paperwork (work as imagined). It’s in that gap where the messy details of significant events begin to emerge.

This new approach is not silent about injury reduction and neither am I. There’s a common misconception that we only care about successful outcomes and that accidents or incidents don’t interest us. It’s certainly true that we find success interesting, but we find all outcomes interesting. Good, bad, normal – if we can learn from an event then we are interested. The beauty of this approach is that these things are happening every day, all around us. We don’t have to wait to play ‘whack a mole’ with incidents to keep learning.

'No matter how well the tried and tested methods have served us in the past, they are inadequate for the present'

I have never advocated simply ditching everything we have done and it’s always been Safety I and Safety II, never Safety I or Safety II. I have always acknowledged the successes of the past in reducing incidents, and I have similarly stated that whatever we do moving forward cannot be at the expense of increased injury rates. However, I have also witnessed first-hand the frustration within organisations and frontline workers at the way safety turns a blind eye to the difficulties of doing work in the real world, the stifling effects or bureaucracy and the blame and shame game – one CEO refers to this as ‘two-speed safety’. This disillusionment leads to disengagement – if you involve the people standing in the middle of risk in the management of that risk and you will develop trust through mastery and autonomy.

It’s easy to cherry-pick studies, ‘facts’ or statistics in support of a point of view (you can’t compare Laing O’Rourke industry-leading incident rates with Vodafone’s fatality rates), but no matter how well the tried and tested methods have served us in the past, they are inadequate for the present. What is ‘true’ and what is ‘fact’ changes over time.

The world of work has changed. It has become volatile, uncertain, ambiguous, and immeasurably more complex and we need to respond with an effective approach.

I have been involved in safety for more than 40 years, and I care deeply about the organisations I work for and the people within them. I believe all safety professionals feel the same, but we need to have the courage to look for new ways if the tools of the past are no longer serving us.

John Green is vice-president, global HSE, at SNC-Lavalin. Read his original article at bit.ly/IOSH-Green-leading-light

IOSH SepOct20_Full.jpg
This article appeared in our Sept/Oct 2020 issue of IOSH Magazine .
Click here to view this issue

You may also be interested in...

web_p36-38_IMG_20170315_113605.png

 Case study: Kazakhstan’s national railway

Wednesday 9th September 2020
The safety culture at Kazakhstan’s national railway hadn’t moved on from its time under Soviet control. But in the last year, new HSE director Askhat Sariyev has started to change processes, practices and – most importantly – mindsets.
Open-access content
web_p55-56_Consultations--woman-sitting-on-graph--Getty--1227304981.png

 Revitalising the world of work

Wednesday 9th September 2020
From AI and corporate transparency to mental health at work, IOSH is loud in its calls to revitalise public policy, writes Richard Jones CFIOSH.
Open-access content
web_p66-67_competency-framework-Construction-workers-on-site-wearing-face-mask--Getty--1214645222.png

 Competency vs COVID

Wednesday 9th September 2020
Two experienced health and safety professionals explain how IOSH’s competency framework has helped them face up to the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Open-access content
web_p46-48_Biohazard-Covid-19-concept-vial-of-antidote--Getty--1215793654.png

 Are you prepared for the next biohazard?

Wednesday 9th September 2020
COVID-19 has shown that biohazards can threaten organisations in any sector. How are health and safety practices being developed to meet the challenge of future outbreaks?
Open-access content
web_p40-42_cleaning-window_GettyImages-972866298_v2.png

 Why fatal falls are avoidable

Wednesday 9th September 2020
There are 36 fatalities a year in UK workplace falls from height, but the government is reluctant to accept the recommendations of a report that could reduce the number.
Open-access content
web_p12-15_News-Update-NHS-staff-applauding--Getty--1220619354.png

 The critical role of healthcare workers

Wednesday 9th September 2020
The critical role played by health workers in protecting patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – and action to better support this essential workforce – is brought to the fore on World Patient Safety Day.
Open-access content
Topics
Features
Accident reduction
Leadership
Performance/results
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Health and Safety Improvement Manager

Leeds
£35000 - £50000 per annum
Reference
5452992

SHEQ Systems Advisor

Up to £40000.00 per annum + Car Allowance
Reference
5452988

Senior Health and Safety Manager

Reading
Up to £65000.00 per annum + Great Car Allowance & Benefits
Reference
5452983
See all jobs »

Sign up for regular e-alerts

Receive the latest news and features, free to your inbox

Sign up

Subscribe to IOSH magazine

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
IOSH Covers
​
FOLLOW US
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
CONTACT US
Contact us
Tel +44 (0)20 7880 6200
​

IOSH

About IOSH
Become a member
IOSH Events
MyIOSH

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to IOSH magazine
Write for IOSH magazine

IOSH Magazine

Health
Safety
Management
Skills
IOSH Jobs

© 2023 IOSH • IOSH is not responsible for the content of external sites

ioshmagazine.com and IOSH Magazine are published by Redactive Media Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ