The Challenge with Zero Harm as a Measurable Performance Indicator is Well Known. The Antidote is More Elusive:

Zero Harm, a popular goal in many safety programs, advocates for the complete elimination of workplace injuries. It's closely tied to Behavioural Based Safety (BBS), which emphasises individual behaviour as a driver of safety outcomes. In a vast majority of Australian businesses that have adopted BBS programs, success in safety is claimed to be achieved when injury rates are at or approaching zero. This is known as the Zero Harm approach.

The Challenges with Zero Harm

The challenges with using Zero Harm as a performance indicator are widely accepted in contemporary safety literature. The issues include:

• Perfectionism: Absolutes drive perfectionistic, unrealistic, and often unhelpful mindsets.

• Motivational Decline: When Zero Harm (inevitably) is violated, it reduces motivation and may even create disillusionment.

• Risk Aversion: It fosters a culture of risk aversion, intolerance, reluctance to report incidents, and a blame culture.

• Lack of Predictive Value: It does not predict future safety performance effectively.

• Oversimplification: Success is measured in absolute terms, failing to account for the complexities of dynamic systems.

The Moral Case for Zero Harm

It’s important to note that the moral philosophy behind Zero Harm is not in question—certainly not by this writer. People deserve a safe place to work and to go home safely, both physically and mentally. The real question is: How do we know how we’re performing in safety if we only measure the absence of accidents or the cost of failure?

A Search for the Antidote

While there is no single ‘antidote’ to the challenges of Zero Harm, organisations are finding success with alternative approaches. We’ve seen the definition of safety evolve from “the absence of accidents” to “the presence of defences” . Many good attempts have been made to measure safety as a capacity for things to go right or as the ability to recover from errors without catastrophic consequences.

Given the increasing complexity of modern work environments, finding simple measures for complex outcomes is a wild goose chase. But there are strategies that can help reframe how we measure safety. Some ideas include:

• Proactive Measures of Real Work: Instead of relying solely on lagging indicators, use proactive measures like Learning Teams, Focus Groups, and outcomes from 1:1 meetings. For example, Learning Teams can offer insights into how frontline workers adapt to unexpected challenges, providing a real-world view of safety capacities.

• Pair Quantitative with Qualitative Data: Try pairing traditional binary measures (like MTI/LTI/TRI) with rich qualitative data. Analyse qualitative data using thematic analysis or discourse analysis to track safety trends over longer periods of time. This gives a fuller picture of the nuances behind the numbers.

• Track Broader Metrics: Monitor traditional safety measures alongside indicators of organisational health, such as psychological safety, employee engagement, retention, and throughput. This helps connect safety to overall workforce wellbeing and resilience and gives more weight to traditional measures. If psychological safety is high and LTIRF is low, your LTIFR is more likely to be accurate than if your psychological safety is low and your LTIFR is low.

• Avoid Single Points of Failure: Cease using single measures of success or failure. When one metric becomes the sole focus, it can itself become a point of failure within your system. By diversifying safety metrics, you build a more robust approach to measuring and improving safety.

  
  

Here's me myth busting the Accident Triangle and discussing how we can evolve.

Bridging Safety and Organisational Health

Safety doesn’t exist in isolation. A strong safety culture that promotes open dialogue and psychological safety often goes hand-in-hand with higher employee engagement, quality, productivity, and retention. These elements contribute to organisational resilience, making safety not just about preventing harm but fostering a thriving, healthy workforce.

How we can help?

Resilience Health and Safety can assist you to engage in an independent, honest and rigorous review of your safety outcomes. Our methods include Learning Teams, Discovery interviews, thematic and discourse analysis, sentiment analysis, Psychological Safety Surveys and Leadership Development through both training and coaching.

Let’s Keep the Conversation Going

What measures have you found effective in promoting safety beyond traditional metrics? How have you balanced quantitative and qualitative data in your own safety strategies? Share your thoughts and strategies in the comments—let’s learn from one another.