Posted By Geof Or perhaps: "Our primary role should be to 'help' prevent accidents and ill health at work." and with mention of other supporting roles such as company nanny.

Posted By Jim Mc Nally Adrian This is a good question and I agree with other responses that you can't prevent every accident in the workplace but I think the argument lies in what we see is a level of acceptable accidents. If we as safety professional do not believe that accidents can be prevented and that there is always going to be accidents, what message does that put out to other professions. Some organisations have gone years without an accident while other similar organisations experience a number of accidents over the same period. This just can't be coincidence or luck. I think that when you start moving into the scenario of having an acceptable level of accidents because all we are trying to do is minimise accidents then you will see accidents.

Posted By John Allen There appear to be two “targets” commonly adopted for health and safety. One is to reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable (the legal requirement) the other now adopted by many companies is “zero accidents”. The latter of course is often tied up with quality and environmental targets where any accident whether causing loss of production, damage or injury is an undesired event to be avoided. “Zero accident” is sometimes also taken as the only safety target which is morally acceptable ie you cannot set an annual target which includes acceptance of a certain amount of harm to people. In contrast “SFAIRP” means that there is some tolerable level of risk which cannot be managed out and there is no benefit in taking further efforts to eliminate it. For instance is it acceptable to have one or two fatal accidents per year on school trips because eliminating these accidents would either stop such trips altogether or put their cost beyond that of most parents? Obviously at a societal level we accept such a risk (but try explaining it to a grieving parent). What is apparent is that when dealing with non-occupational injury risk we are clearly in the SFAIRP area. No one takes zero accidents as the target for either societal or process risk, ie the background risks to which we are all exposed at work, leisure, travel or in the home. For instance even buildings which comply with building regulations, fire provisions etc occasionally collapse or catch fire in a way which their SFAIRP design could not have prevented. In process industries we normally take any risk below one in a million as being inconsequential and not worthy of further effort. One in ten million is in contrast the risk we all accept when we buy a lottery ticket. Where the situation becomes more complicated is in occupational risk. It is here that “zero accidents” is most likely to be adopted. The problem often lies with the workforce’s perception. If zero is the target does one cut thumb negate that target? Better to keep quiet about things? Don’t want to be the person that loses the site its record In setting too high a target there is a risk that you will either turn people off or stifle reporting. But provided you explain to the workforce the moral reason for zero accidents and that it represents a long term vision this can be understood and accepted. Many individual workplaces are able to demonstrate long periods without accident. More to the point many individuals, perhaps the majority go long periods, even their working lifetimes, without having accidents. If one why not all? My view is that zero and SFAIRP are not mutually excusive; if the aim is for zero accidents then a level of risk which is as low as is reasonably practicable will be achieved on the way to that goal. Better to set a high target and fall slightly short of it than to set no target at all or an indifferent one easily attained that fools no one. But progress towards any target must be made in measurable and achievable step. I note the HSE’s strapline is “Reducing Risks – Protecting People”. Our role must be the management of risk by understanding both the probability and the consequences of activities. If our vision is zero accidents then even if we never attain it, by working towards it we will get to a better place.

Posted By Merv Newman I'm jumping on this one with both feet in hob-nailed boots ! Zero harm (accidents, illnesses) is absolutely possible and economically viable. I have been safety manager on two industrial plants, the first was a small chemical site of less than 250 people, the second an engineering site of 500. In the first, for the six years I was there, we had no lost time or medical treatment injuries, an average of 10 first aid injuries per year and trending down. No work related illnesses. There may have been some stress, but we weren't looking at it then. In the second, over a 10 year period we had one LTI, 3 MTs and about 15 to 20 1st Aids. We went 6 years (then I left) without even a medical treatment. Any company, if it reallyreallyreally wants to, can target zero injuries/illnesses within 5 to 10 years. It takes some investment in time and ressources but it always pays off in the end. Why do so many of the really large multinational companies insisting in high quality safety programmes in all of their sites ? Because they know it pays off. A good safety program is the fastest return on investment of all. On the other question, what is our role ? It is not "accident prevention". That is like asking a football team to go out there with the objective of "not losing". Our role is to help everyone to work safely. OK ?

Posted By Merv Newman Nigel, thanks for the positive feedback, which reinforces my feelings on this - I'm motivated to do it again ! And that is positive safety. Identify when people are doing things right - the preferred safe behaviour. Let them know that they are doing something good. Encourage them to do even better in the future. Unfortunately it does not come naturally to the average manager or supervisor. Or safety specialist. When was the last time you congratulated your boss because he had done something good for safety ? Thanks again for the congratulations Nigel, I now have a nice warm feeling about this job. I'll try harder. Merv Newman