Just wondering what the general opinion of this is. Is zero harm policy sensible in regards to what the Health and Safety Act requires. As it seems to bypass the reasonably practicable aspect of the act, as managers will look at the zero harm as meaning taking away all possible risk of injury no matter how remote or result of the possible consequencies.

But like anything it can go too far, history is full of this and I'm a big believer in learning from history and its mistakes. Zero harm looks at producing zero incidents no matter how small, whereas the act I studied looked at a more balanced approach. Driving on the road is a risk even with all the modern protection devices, althought these can cause serious injury to emergency services personnel, so that is a balance of risk as they are expected to employ techniques to minimise it; zero harm does not apply here. Same with some minimal short duration tasks that then get delayed and expensive precautions put in pace in case the competent person doing the job makes a very stupid mistake. Which is very unlikely but may happen so the over the top approach is taken. Just opinion by the way so open for debate.

I like zero harm. I would like to work with a company that sets their stall out that way. I agree with Bob. I also think that the companies that have strap lines like …Zero Harm will focus the minds and install a positive culture within their company. If you do a search on the top 100 construction companies you’ll see Balfour Beatty come in top dog at number 1. They have Zero Harm in their policy. They intimate it’s a vision and a culture setting. Carillion, at number 2. Target Zero is what they have. They even have it embedded in their H&S policy statement. Laing O’Rourke. Launched ‘Mission Zero’ in 2010. Look through the top 100 construction companies and at the higher end of the scale, say in the fifties or like and things like target zero or that H&S strap line isn’t clearly visible as these ones I have mentioned. I’m not saying they are not there, but not easily found. Is it a coincidence that the top successful companies are pushing a ‘zero’ philosophy? The strap lines are targets, visions or cultural settings that are driven by the management team. It’s setting the stall out. Acts, and duties in the Act like SFAIRP, RP and Absolute are poles apart, in my opinion, from the above. Out with the standard that the Managers have set this is what society have set.

But those are the company's that have the mandatory ppe requirements. For instance everyone outside wearing gloves even if you are using nothing more dangerous than a pen and paper. However I can't see you can actually have a target of anything other than zero. If nothing else it gives the wrong impression. You aim for the moon but will settle for a bit less, you aim for outer space and you may not make it out of earths gravity and so you could have a long fall.

Nice post hilary :)

hilary, thanks for not saying 110%.... my pet hate!

I Also have worked with one of the mentioned companies on a large construction project, with the aim of Zero Harm and it was a real eye opening experience. The facilities put in place were amazing the PPE supplied to workers and visiting consultants was outstanding. General attention to detail in all aspects of health & Safety was incredible. However the only issue with Zero Harm as an aim on any size of project is that any other result is a FAIL.

I regret to say that I am feeling a little uncomfortable reading these comments. I tend to agree in higher risk areas, such as construction, that this is a laudable aim and promotes good H&S performance. However, if this attitude is taken down to the lower end of the risk spectrum you end up with jobsworths causing the bonkers conkers type of zero tolerance. This has been slated many times in this forum and is, I believe, excessive. Therefore I feel that the above posts should come with a "only in higher risk industries" clause.

Firestar: You asked for opinion... So heres my own.... I have worked with (or alongside) many organisations over the past thirty-plus years in my health and safety career. Many of them (including several from the 'top 100 list' identified above) had stated aspirations or "tag lines" suggesting they were committed to 'zero' in one way or another. (zero harm, beyond zero, target zero etc). In my experience the stated aspiration is most commonly unhelpful, distracting, and is associated with a negative effect on safety "culture". I believe this is due to the difficulty that virtually everyone has in translating the aspiration into practical, sensible, proportionate actions and behaviours. All too often - and I've seen it in seven or eight businesses - the only observable practical result is that senior managers take a very close personal interest when things are reported to go wrong (which should be a good thing...). Unfortunately the focus on zero means their investigations are received in the workplace (almost invariably) as a sort of disciplinary investigation ("You have made the company fail...") - injured employees are identified as the authors of their own misfortune, Managers are criticised for 'allowing' the accident to occur, and victim dismissal is all too common as a result. It takes very little imagination to understand why those on the receiving end - those at the lower levels of hierarchy - quickly realise that it is a good idea not to report anything (for fear of reprisal from the top). So the 'Zero accidents' challenge from the top results in a 'zero accidents reported' response from below. Which should be very worrying indeed if you're trying to find out how well the business is managing its risks. Managers are measured, rewarded and penalised not on their efforts to improve safety - but rather on the absence of accidents reported - which is a negative measure largely dependant on luck (Plus a bit of skill in playing hide the thinble...) People develop skill in 'hiding' things that have gone wrong. I have knowledge of one organisation that was so determined (at board level) to preserve their zero 'boast' a subsidiary company became so terrified of retribution it successfully 'hid' two work-related fatalities from board room reports.... And - at least one of the companies named above from the 'top 100' does not include subcontractor fatalities in its Accident Frequency Rate. Still on target for zero even though a man has died? I find this unpalatable. Network Rail were very heavily criticised by ORR a couple of years ago for having a culture that discouraged accident reporting. In my opinion nothing is more calculated to discourage accident reporting than a Board Level preoccupation with zero. It will be very interesting if (when) any large company in the UK is ever prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter laws... Investigators are required to have regard to the steps the Board took to establish the business 'culture'. If the only Board level action identified during the investigation was to effectively tell everyone 'we don't want to hear about any accidents' - then my money is on a guilty verdict followed by all the 'target zero' tag lines disappearing en-mass UK-wide overnight. For the sake of balance - I believe it is possible to have a healthy, positive safety culture with - or without - the zero tag line. I have worked with (alongside) one organisation which has a zero harm aspiration and a very positive safety culture. In my opinion this is entirely down to the business owners taking a close and personal interest in each and every part of the business to the extent that all employees feel valued and trusted - and in return they trust the business owners enoiugh that they are willling to admit when things have gone wrong. I believe this Company would have an excellent safety performance even without the zero tag line. And I have worked with several companies I would judge as being positive about safety - who wouldn't touch a zero aspiration with a barge pole.

Steve Some good examples of policy drift plus how directors etc fail to really accept the full meaning of such a policy and how to achieve such aims. Corporate seagulls to peck eyes out continue to exist because directors believe that they set policy and others will implement it. They therefore need to punish poor implementation. Behind it is the inability to accept that to achieve such performance actually involves a fully interdependant culture where ALL are equally responsible and ALL are equal in achieving the goal. When the junior office member feels able to berate a main board director for their lack of safe behaviour you know you are coming close. Have only ever seen this once - the rest of the time the directors are flying gods who can do no wrong. Bob

Oops, trigger happy. Hilary, aspirational but not real world. Should targets be realistic and achievable or aspirational - a moot point?

I agree with those who mistrust the concept. Like Steve I have worked in companies that became slaves to the mantra. It is a hangover from the ‘hearts and minds’ and ‘mission statement’ stuff of the 80’s and 90’s in my opinion. ‘Yeah we all agree it would be good but is it really a business target and how does it help us succeed?’ has been asked many times. It may be fine once the culture is mature enough and performance is at a high level but not as an initial change driver. What most senior execs and managers understand much better is a ‘ challenge to improve’ approach. Both before and after event reviews and planning that seek the ‘challenge to improve’ are far more effective in actually achieving and maintaining improvements. It is commonly used in all other aspect of management and is therefore not counter culture in most cases. Being required, for example, to report to your senior what challenges you have identified and what improvements you propose is far more powerful than banging on about zero harm. You will arrive at points where further improvement is neither desirable nor achievable (for the time being) and you are not left in conflict with your cultural statements. p48

Some good points, particularly like Steve Ashton's. Like all things H & S though it is how people interpret the "vision", yes you could call it a fail if you have an incident or call it a learning experience, but you should look upon it as a success if you don't. I think that as long as everyone works towards one day having an "Incident & Injury Free" environment or "Zero Harm" as others call it, then everyone should work towards that goal. JFK had a vision that one day there would be a man on the moon, he didn't say when he just threw Billions of Dollars at it! Clive

I agree that 100% is aspirational and I know that in a real world situation this is not very likely, as some accidents are simply accidents and no matter how many controls you put in place, there is always one more idiot than you counted on. However, I still think that people should plan to be 100% and work towards 100% because that should be the ultimate destination.

P48 tongue firmly in cheek;-)

Everything we set in life should be achievable, too much aspiration generally leads to disappointment. Zero Harm as an aspiration is fine but as an achievable target, failure awaits. Paradoxically we learn through failure, therefore if we achieve zero harm, do we stop learning and thus become more prone to error? Great stuff, love it. What does zero harm actually mean anyway? No LTIs, MTIs, FAI and Low TRIR etc? or just Zero everthing, including work related stress? I must admit I dislike harming myself and others. Off for a pint and a fag... Toodle pip.

I strongly believe in this..we can make ZERO harm with the methodology that NEBOSH taught us..... ERICPD -- this really works to make a place ZERO ACCIDENT ZONE. -- Rakesh

I've seen zero harm work. I worked for 20 years with a major chemical company. They had a zero harm and zero defect policy and huge improvements in incident reduction and product quality were made. However - this was with 100% management support. Not just token statements but really getting involved. No one expected to achieve zero harm or zero defects but this remained the aim. 5 years without a RIDDOR incident and 8 years without an incident that needed to be reported to our corporate HQ ( different rules from RIDDOR as an international concern ). Logic being that you can only achieve as high as your targets are set. It works if you make it work. Most businesses just won't want to make the effort - which is a bit dumb really considering what results you can get.

You can slice an organisation up any number of ways you like geographically, by project or different parts of its performance etc, and a 'target zero' approach can exist within those constituent parts. Parts of certain high risk industries have achievable and realistic 'zero' targets, they might not prevent every paper-cut and bad back within a huge interational corporation, but can hit or work towards important targets where/when they are necessary. So I dont think its possible or aspirational to remove every single minor accident (or harm). But when we see the Olympic Park built with zero fatalities, or a civils project built with zero lost time injuries, then I see a 'zero' target as a very realistic, sensible and positive move.

The problem with setting targets for accidents/injuries etc, is that there is no totally defensible way of tackling this. If you set a zero target, which is the only morally defensible stance, you then face the thorny issue that it will not realistically be achievable (we are dealing with human beings, at the end of the day), and such a target may be counter-productive in discouraging reporting. If, however, you set targets for numbers of accidents, or percentage reductions, you then face the moral accusation that you are effectively planning to hurt x number of people, or consider that doing so is acceptable. Quite a dilemma. Might I suggest that the basic problem lies in setting targets that relate to reactive measures, in other words adverse events that have already happened, or where things have gone wrong. It might be more helpful, if you must set targets, to focus on things to prevent accidents, or active measures. My personal opinion is that you will never eliminate all accidents, but you can put things into place to minimise the chances of them happening, or at least to mitigate their effects. How about targets focused on training, inspections, behavioural safety issues, improvement groups, equipment improvements etc?