Is it time to embrace ‘Safety Differently’?

Is the traditional “zero harm” safety culture really succeeding in eliminating accidents on site? Elaine Knutt talks to Laing O’Rourke’s John Green, whose radical approach is starting to make waves in the industry.

John Green

If you’ve heard of “safety differently”, chances are you either work for Laing O’Rourke or have heard a presentation by John Green, health and safety director for its Europe hub.

Green returned to the UK in summer 2015 after five years in Australia, where he successfully turned ideas in the eponymous book by Australian academic Sidney Dekker into operational policy on Laing O’Rourke sites. But although the ideas have taken root at Laing O’Rourke and elsewhere – including aviation and mining – so far it’s made limited impact in construction.

And it’s not difficult to see why “safety differently” might be a hard sell – essentially, it demands an end to the established culture of “zero harm” policies, and a greater acceptance of accidents as part of working life. To an industry that’s adopted mottoes such as “all accidents are preventable” and ”zero tolerance”, that’s a blindfolded leap into an unknown filled with liability claims, bidding problems and sleepless nights.

Green is the first to assert this doesn’t mean throwing out the gains of the last 15 years. “It’s not a ‘new church’ because the old one is wrong – I think the principles we’re applying are solidly based [in current practice]. But they’re also for people in search of alternatives, because the old ways aren’t working. Zero harm has done a great job, but its time is done.” The clearest evidence, as he points out, is the stubbornly high fatality rate: a five-year average of 43 between 2010/11 and 2014/15.

Eliminating all accidents in a “zero harm” culture – exemplified by Laing O’Rourke’s Mission Zero (2010), Balfour Beatty’s Zero Harm (2008) or BAM Nuttall’s Beyond Zero (2005) – is driven by the belief that serious accidents are most likely to occur where risks in general are poorly managed. In a culture where all accidents are reported, investigated and controlled, behaviours that lead to fatalities can be eliminated.

This has in turn led to a focus on “behaviourism” – programmes where risky behaviours are identified and sanctioned, and pro-safety behaviours, such as reporting near-misses, encouraged and rewarded.

The best-selling book

Sydney Dekker is a professor at Griffith University in Brisbane, and founder of its Safety Innovation lab. Safety Differently, published in 2014, argues that the current bureaucracy-heavy safety management approach overlooks the “human factor”, our ability to manage risk collaboratively in teams.

His book also argues that safety as a bureaucratic activity has relegated ethical responsibility to the back seat, and that an emphasis on “fixing” people’s behaviours and decision-making with controls, training and interventions has proved ineffective. The book also addresses how technological changes are impacting on safety.

But what if this argument was flawed? “Safety differently“ argues that the zero harm model is based on a logical fallacy, as research hasn’t found a correlation between eliminating minor accidents and preventing fatalities or major incidents. “Safety is seen as the absence of accidents – but you can’t say you’ve got safety based on the absence of something else. Binary logic doesn’t apply here,” says Green.

He also argues that “Incident and Injury Free” working days might not be an unalloyed good. “Major accidents tend to be preceded by days of accident-free operation, and when was the accident created? On the days you didn’t have accidents,” he says. In other words, the focus on eliminating small risks, and taking false comfort from it, has been at the expense of addressing major ones.

Zero risk is impossible

That leads Green to his key assertion: “Accidents are an inevitable by-product of a normal functioning system. Zero risk is impossible with human beings – they try new things, they make mistakes. We need to shift our game from eliminating accidents entirely to obsessing about high level and serious risks, like working in confined spaces and lifting.”

And “zero tolerance” brings further problems, Green argues. First, it’s led to the association of safety with a long list of negatives and an oppressive site culture, expressed in insistent posters and admonishing slogans: “We talk about accidents, incidents and failure – we’re horribly tied to negativity.”

Plus, it generates a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. “We calculate that 30% of our bureaucracy [at Laing O’Rourke] is external, from legislation and codes of practice, and 70% was additional requirements we introduced. We’re actively trying to reduce that – if it doesn’t make our work any safer, it’s not adding any value.”

Green has encountered “appetite for change”, both among the site teams at the Laing O’Rourke trial projects, and among clients and joint venture partners. “There was some sensitivity – it was judged to be a bit ‘out there’. Other people were as tired of the zero harm mantra as we were, but there wasn’t an alternative.”

So what are the hallmarks of the new approach? There’s a shift from top-down method statements for high-risk tasks in favour of methods elicited by the on-site team itself; a culture of examining “successes” rather than dissecting “failures”, and looking objectively, rather than critically, at why a work task was carried out differently from the plan.

Toolbox talks are about creating genuine relationships with site teams, so site managers are expected to use 20% of the time available for dialogue with the team.

“It recognises that people are adaptive, and have insight. So one of the fundamental principles is that rules are made at the coalface, not in the corporate office. The real experts are the people doing the work, not the people planning it. We’re inviting the people doing the work into the circle,” he summarises. “There’s a big trust thing in this, you really have to build trust among the workforce to get this to work.”

Green’s own journey began when he was challenged to improve the safety culture at Laing O’Rourke in Australia. Once conventional thinking had brought the rate down, he experienced a moment of insight. “We had only just started this; the European business was two years ahead. So we had a look, and thought ‘more expense, more bureaucracy, more performance drag on the business’. And the European business had three fatalities in 18 months. That wasn’t the sort of safety future we wanted to buy into,” he says.

But are his ideas likely to fall on fertile ground? Green’s views certainly strike a chord with Billy Hare MCIOB, professor of Construction Management at Glasgow Caledonian University, who agrees there is academic evidence backing up the idea that “the causes of a cut are not the causes of a fatality”.

“‘Safety differently’ is challenging, but there is frustration at the lack of impact of behavioural system programmes, and the fact zero harm is not having the desired effect. A lot of time and money has been invested, but it is not always acting in our best interests,” he says.

“If you’re aiming for zero harm and you have to spread your resources and effort across the entire accident triangle [of serious accidents, minor incidents and near-misses], then you can easily take your eye off the ball.”

But he is still waiting to see what “safety differently” offers. “We will have to see what substance is put forward. I’m anticipating more analysis of the impact of psychology and sociology on behavioural programmes – I think we’ve been naïve. But behavioural safety and zero harm is still what we’ve got at the moment, until John and others can come up with alternatives.”   

Green certainly hopes “safety differently” can take the industry in a new direction. He has discussed it with the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), and has been asked to speak to universities. He’s also taking the ideas down the Laing O’Rourke supply chain: “They have a significant interest in this – they’re less able to cope with all the bureaucracy,” he says.

As for the HSE, he’s hopeful that recent remarks by chair Dame Judith Hackitt about tackling bureaucracy mean that it, broadly speaking, is travelling in the same direction: “I think we could work together on this – you wouldn’t want to do this without involving the regulator, and you’d also have to get the insurers and the legal profession involved.”

There may be mounting frustration that “zero harm” isn’t delivering a truly safe industry – and private acknowledgement that its evangelism can be more for the benefit of the business and board than site teams – but no one doubts that zero harm strategies have contributed to a safer industry. However, the industry will be interested in anything that promises a better alternative, and Green’s challenge is now to build a convincing case.  

John Green is speaking at the IOSH conference on 21-22 June.

Expo 2016 takes the lead 

The Safety and Health Expo returns to ExCeL London on 21-23 June, providing construction managers with a forum to hear about the latest updates on health and safety compliance and legislation, and trial new technologies and services on the market.

In 2015, the event attracted more than 13,000 visitors, a 43% increase from the previous year. In 2016 further growth in attendance is expected, with over 300 exhibitors at the event, from PPE and fall-arrest equipment suppliers to training organisations and consultants. 

Attendees will benefit from over 60 hours of accredited CPD content led by more than 100 experts. Clive Johnson, director of health and safety at Land Securities, will explore health risks in the construction industry, while Steve Hails, Crossrail’s health and safety director, will also be presenting on its learning legacy.

Following the launch of the inspirational speaker series last year, this year’s speakers are Colonel Tim Collins OBE, Kate Adie OBE and James Cracknell OBE, who will share anecdotes from their own careers and offer advice on leadership and achieving success in any field.

The show is being supported by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF), Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) and the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM).

Registereration for Safety & Health Expo is now open at www.safety-health-expo.co.uk/reg

The next chapter on health

The Health in Construction Leadership Group has confirmed a new summit event at London’s ExCel conference centre on 21 April. The event follows the launch of its new occupational health campaign on 21 January.

Speakers at the invitation-only event will include Professor Dame Carol Black, a special adviser to the Department of Health, and Dr Richard Judge, HSE chief executive.

The summit will include a number of “facilitated discussions”, on integrated health management; maintaining impetus on respiratory risks; a new industry approach to mental health, and developing a plan of action and measuring progress.

Meanwhile, a new online survey on occupational health in the building services sector has been launched by the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA) and the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA).

Paul Reeve, director of business services at the ECA said that many contractors still struggle with occupational health.

He said: “Our survey aims to find out more about the current situation, to give an informed baseline for helping contractors to engage with both physical, and mental, health issues.”