That depends upon how you choose to identify "harm".

Plenty of press (stories) about people with "hurt" feelings due to the comments, beliefs or actions of others.

Then we have the raft of "trigger warnings" proliferating in arts and culture.

To top it off we have just had Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 whose intention is to protect from sexual harrasment which some have painted as the final nail in any convivial working environment as fear of anything said or done may offend.

As I march toward my free bus pass (providing it is available and they stop keep pushing back the date on which I can obtain one) I silently mourn the days when society let people arbitrate their own decisions and take responsibility for themself.

As to purely statistics of accidents, injuries and ill health zero harm makes a nice aspiration.

When you look at the definition of harm "physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted" - deliberate infliction must arise by the requirement the employee undertakes work tasks. So its not taking humans out of the equation, more taking humans out of the workplace.

Mornimg Steve

Gettng to "Zero Harm" implicitly means getting to "Zero Risk" and that can't be done except (at the individual level ) by taking people out of the equation, which in societal terms is not desirable as in statistical terms they are less likely to be harmed if in work.

There is the old adage "Every accident is preventable" to which my retort has always been "Perhaps, but not by reasonably practicable precautions".

No Zero Harm advocated as ever managed to answer my question about how you stop people falling off the edges of railway platforms.

RSSB are the owners of the Safety Risk Model which counts the number of "equivalent fatalities" arising from numerous different types of things that happen on the railway. If an injury doesn't result in death but rather less severe injure then obviously it doesn't count as a fatality but if you have enough incidents then they tot up to one "equivalent fatality" [Examples 10 @ "major injuries" as defined in the former RIDDOR or 2000 @ quite mino injuries = 1 equivalent fatality].

We know from the Safety Risk Model that people fall off platforms usually without serious injury other than when they fall under a moving train.

Now it is clearly feasible i.e. practicable to prevent (almost all of) these incidents. All you need is a barrier at the edge of the platform with interlocked gates that open when the doors of a train are alongside. It is done on many modern railway networks.

So in theory such barriers could be retrofitted at 100s of stations in the UK but this is unlikely to happen (a) because of cost and (b) technical difficulties including that the rolling stock that uses a platform is often not of consistent design - hence the doors of the carriages might not align with the interlocked gates in the barrier.

So practicable but not reaonably practicable.

If it's not reasonably practicable to eliminate or completely control the risks then Zero Harm is not feasible.

Of course, many jurisdictions don't have the concept of reasonable practicability written into thei OSH law but usually instead they introduce fairly arbitrary thresholds to denote when precautions are or are not required - e.g. saying that working platforms need edge protection when the potential fall is say 6 feet, but not when less.