Edmonds blog | Just another Sheq Africa Sites site

‘Zero harm’ is a dangerous notion, not a goal

December 13th, 2011

A job advertisement for a mining group health and safety manager in December 2011 incidentally admits that ‘zero harm’ is a “notion”. The zero motto is entrenched as a false and cultic slogan.

A mining human resources advertisement requires group H&S manager candidates to be “Responsible for drafting policies and formulating strategies aimed at assisting to achieve the notion of ZERO Harm.” The word “notion” sums up what mining HR people believe this sheq concept to be.

The word could be a Freudian slip, in a cult indoctrinated to write ‘zero’ in capital letters, revealing a home truth that is not allowed to be whispered in the corridors of mining management.

The ‘zero’ gospel had become an item of faith, verbal ritual and cult. It is not a goal, not an attitude, and not a value.

Target ‘zero’ does not ring true in an industry where multinational blue cup corporate leaders are adjusting their risk tolerance to approach global best practice, in line with modern equipment, while still externalising some costs and sheq impacts by relying on migrant labour, minimum training, rates and taxes privileges, a production ethic, and profit export.

Triple bottom line impacts and externalised costs are even larger at some local, non-leading miners. Mining, with its global mechanisms, national chambers, funds and massive financial machinery, had failed at preventing ‘blood’ diamonds from being scraped together by warlords and finding their way into various markets.

Mining had failed at preventing big name crooks from entering its ranks, stripping assets, escalating acid mine drainage, and killing some small scale illegal miners who wanted crumbs from the fat men’s tables.

Mining had failed at securing its old and mothballed shafts, allowing a black market industry where the scale of exploitation is worse than the Industrial Revolution. Mining and some traders in precious metals are standing on a pile of hell holes worse than the Dark Ages.

Like descriptions of hell in various spiritual systems, mining has various layers. The top layer is labeled ‘progress towards ZERO harm’, but beneath that façade lie only a few thin layers of false numbers to camouflage the relentless realities of the ugly face of capitalism and ‘development’.

South African society, half the world, and lately Asia, are of course complicit in the welfare and population growth that mining is allowing most of us to enjoy. I feel most uncomfortable with health and safety consultants, professionals, practitioners, officials and representatives buying into the ‘zero’ lie.

The glories of sheq management of the last half century includes a managerial toolbox that support the highest human goals, like prevention of unnecessary suffering, personal integration, self realisation, and tolerating out collective humanity in this vale of laughter and tears.

Mining sheq management had crossed a perilous line by entrenching self delusion where honesty matters most, in the place that should be taken by mining safety assessment, leadership, goals, attitudes and values.

Instead of meaningful indicators, there is a big ZERO sticker pasted over our mining sheq banners.

It would take a brave mining group health and safety manger to remove zeros and other lesser lies from sheq accounting books.

Witch hunt for ‘zero’ doubters

A mining employer asked me for the name of a sheq official who raised some doubt on the ‘zero harm’ motto during question time at a conference on H&S enforcement by DOL and DMR.

In turn, I asked the mine for transparent debate, arguing that protocol should not obscure honest recognition of our collective professional problems, and collective search for solutions. I had zero response on that theme.

The same doubts had emerged among some inspectors, policy makers, lawyers and workers, yet there is zero debate about the concept of zero.

I recall a paragraph from a report on Sheqafrica.com last year; “Defending Anglo American’s ‘zero harm’ motto, championed by its CEO and backed by consultants Du Pont, an Anglo official explained that the corporate occupational health and safety motto implied a ‘zero tolerance culture, not a statistical goal’. He noted that ‘zero harm’ continued the former Anglo motto of ‘OTTO’, which stood for ‘Zero Tolerance, Target Zero’.

The same report explored aspects of polemics in academic and sheq circles about the terms ‘zero’, ‘harm’, ‘target’, ‘goal’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘enforcement’, which were part of the subject of the conference.

Zero debate about zero harm

I propose to Anglo American to consider the sheq delegate’s bona fide comment and issue as informative and worthy of consideration. Within this context, the identity of the delegate should be irrelevant.

But the witch hunt for doubters of zero now extend even to recruitment. Applicants proposing more rational approaches would not be hired.

I had also posed a question on ‘zero harm’ at a hard rock mining safety conference, themed on ‘zero harm’, via an SMS number reserved for this purpose, but the chairman had ignored the question.

Which sheq numbers do you want?

The more instant and interactive communication media become, like SMS lines at a conference, the easier it is to block communication and sustain a schizophrenic consciousness, and a split conscience.

A recent coal mining disaster in the USA had revealed that their sheq officials kept two sets of records, one for inspectors, the CEO’s speeches, and the world, another for themselves.

I have reason to believe that the mining zero harm motto had dome away the with need to record and report leading indicators of health and safety performance. Only the book of lies remain. Cowboys do not cry and do not read much.

I have come to understand that the ‘zero harm’ approach and motto has become something of a religion in some companies, instead of a commonly understood culture or value.

No work for non-zero consultants

Consider this comment form an industrial theatre contractor; “I said at the interview with the mine that ultimate targets were a noble goal, but the approach was not supported in some academic research, and some employers avoided absolute terms, and defined ‘harm’ by setting risk tolerance, instead of the vaguely understood ‘zero harm’.

“One of the officials jumped up to tell me that ‘zero harm’ was being driven at the highest level, and rolled out across the group, and I understood that I should align with this motto and not question it.”

I have several reasons to believe the detailed arguments of Corrie Pitzer, David Broadbent, Prof Philip Frankel, and other researchers worldwide, who take ‘zero harm’ to be part and parcel of a paradigm of fallacies, including misplaced beliefs in the veracity of statistics, data, and information.

Zero improvement in safety

These questions go to the core of the current plateau in injury frequencies in mining and industry, and the debate and culture change required to break through that plateau.

Alternative mottos could include ‘Let’s talk about reducing harm’. Instead of focusing sheq programmes on numbers, we should focus on identity, climate, cultural symbols, dramatisation, singing, dancing and social compacts.

I was made painfully aware of the inadequacy of the sheq professions at a Bushveld Safety Forum meeting, where various mining sheq people were earnestly asking one another for new ideas and applications to invoke and sustain a culture that would further reduce losses.

Of course they all nodded in agreement with the notion of zero harm too. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Sheq greetings, Edmond Furter, Sheqafrica.com editor

Comments

1. Jurgen Tietz (2011-12-21)   

   From Jurgen Tietz, safety consultant (via email to editor Edmond Furter); ZERO HARM is an eternal question and academic debate, like chicken and egg. ZERO HARM is not an end goal, but a target to aim for, or direction for the safety journey.

   World class employerss do get close to ZERO HARM. If applied correctly, it can be the driver to change the culture and perception of people in safety.

   Aim for the stars to reach the sky, as I say frequently in telling the story of mountaineer Sibusiso Vilane.

   If you do not aim towards ZERO HARM, what do you aim for? A quota of incidents, including fatalities? -Jurgen Tietz

Corrie Pitzer (2012-1-11)   
Mr Tietz’ comments underpins misconceptions about ‘zero’. The emotional question of: ‘if not zero, how many fatalities do you target or accept’, is fallacious and false. It’s not an ‘either or’ issue. If you don’t support the war in Afghanistan, it does follow that you support the Tailban. You can disagree with both.
The statistical or otherwise statement of zero has a detrimental impact on organisational culture, on credibility of managers who profess it (but secretly share disbelief of it,) and detracts from the real vision of safety, based on genuinely care about fellow employees.
The safety profession is not doing itself any favours by proclaiming ‘zero’ goals, in explicit terms, while having to explain that we don’t actually mean it!
Dave (Safety Risk) Collins (2012-1-28)   
I argued this point with a corporate Safety Manager the other day. He came back with “Nothing is Impossible”, but was really pissed off when I pointed out that nothing was another word for zero!

Explore SHEQ Africa

• Featured Articles
• African SHEQ News
• World SHEQ News
• SHEQ Blogs
• SHEQ Articles

SHEQ Solutions

Sheq Articles

Recent Posts

Employers could enforce SA's new sheq era in 2012

‘Zero harm’ is a dangerous notion, not a goal

Self regulation is our sheq backbone

Sheq risk managers must study ‘human error’