Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just to clarify a little; our targets are based on the AFR and ASR; with a % reduction based on last years performance. Which in the last 4 years we have managed to achieve the ambitious targets we have set ourselves.
Our aim is for Zero Harm; when you/your organisation have had a fatality then it focusses the minds and hearts somewhat and as such to say we are going to accept a serious accident in my opinion is unacceptable - which seems to put me in the minority??
Maybe there is a bit of semantics here too with what we really mean by Zero Harm, Targets, Aims, Objectives etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Yes Stuie we need to be sure what we mean by an accident.
To me something that requires a RIDDOR is very serious and rare.
So when I talk about an accident I mean anything reported that invovles someone getting even very slightly hurt e.g., small cut on the finger, stubbed toe, bruised arm.
Others seem to mean something broken or worse.
Good discussion though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ok, to add a little context, although many to choose from out there, here's BAM Nuttalls "beyond zero" commitment:
"With our 'Beyond zero' commitment, through visible leadership, a strong health and safety culture and continual improvement, we strive for levels of performance where accidents are eliminated and health is enhanced."
"Accidents are eliminated" is a strong statement that IMO would apply to ALL accidents, no matter how trivial?
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Its all about context - A target of zero is perfectly reasonable target, it just depends on what you are talking about, an industrial unit to have zero fatalities or major injuries, zero is a good target. Zero derailments or passenger fatalities for a train business is a good target. Zero accidents of any and all descriptions in an organisation bigger than a SME is most likely unachievable......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Call my cynical, but I have worked for some organisations who adopt the Target Zero mantra and I am convinced this type of rhetoric is to appease their corporate clients. Indeed many of our industry initiatives are driven by clients. In some cases they are mandatory for contractors, not necessarily so for client's employees, which in itself provides double-standards.
All these glossy brochures, pictures and posters may look great...once again, talk is cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.