A recent review article published in the Journal of Safety Research critically examined the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of zero and complemented this with a statistical evaluation of Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIF) incident data in the United States (US) from 2018 to 2022.
Following a similar approach to prior research conducted in the United Kingdom (UK), the study assessed companies that incorporate the zero concept in their practices.
Study: Making zero work for construction safety in a post-zero world. Image Credit: Sach336699/Shutterstock.com
Background
Zero remains the biggest number in occupational safety. For example, the UK’s Institution of Occupational Safety and Health has launched Vision Zero (VZ) training. However, various arguments have been made against the use of zero, including the potential for under-reporting and workforce disengagement.
With the rising importance of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental, Social, and Governance reporting for firms, zero offers a powerful, attractive, and robust ‘value’ for firms to demonstrate their commitment.
However, it can be considered ‘snake oil for safety’ as zero initiatives are valorized for what they look and feel like rather than what they actually do for workers facing SIFs daily.
Analysis of four years of UK construction industry accident data showed that a SIF was more likely on sites operating a zero program than on a site that did not, which is called the zero paradox. The data did not demonstrate any considerable benefit of using zero for SIF incidents in the adopting firms.
Theoretical Aspects
The construction industry, established during the first Industrial Revolution, has a long history rooted in prioritizing production over people. During this era, accidents and incidents were often dismissed as "acts of God." However, occupational safety management in construction has significantly improved since then.
Advancements in safety technologies, management practices, and personal protective equipment have led to fewer serious injuries on job sites. Nevertheless, some specific construction tasks, such as bricklaying, and their associated challenges for workers have seen little change over time.
From a legal perspective, Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) regulations are well-established globally, though their implementation varies depending on the context. For instance, in the US, employers are required to implement measures that are "…reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment." In the UK, employers must ensure "…so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
Despite these reasonable standards, the contemporary push toward "zero" harm or injuries has become a pervasive goal in occupational safety. This shift can be attributed to the hyperbolic use of language in 21st-century society, where the pursuit of zero has become the norm. Yet, the concept of zero harm remains largely unproven and, in some cases, may create more problems than it resolves.
Zero Policies in the U.S. Construction Industry
The top 15 US construction companies by revenue in 2018 were analyzed, using company size and financial success as proxies for their commitment to safety. Of these, six had incorporated "zero" into their occupational safety policies, referred to as Zero Companies, while the remaining nine, which had not adopted or implemented a zero policy, were categorized as non-Zero Companies.
Between 2018 and 2022, Zero Companies reported 10 fatal accidents compared to 16 in non-Zero Companies. Serious injuries were also fewer in Zero Companies, with seven incidents recorded, versus 23 in non-Zero Companies. However, the data on Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIF) incidents across the Zero Companies showed no clear pattern or evidence to support the effectiveness of zero in safety management.
These ambiguous findings, along with the lack of empirical evidence supporting the practical benefits of zero policies in both the UK and the US, cast doubt on the value of adopting zero as a safety strategy. Furthermore, concerns persist about unintended consequences, including the potential negative impact on worker engagement in safety practices when zero is pursued in the field.
Making Zero Work
The researchers concluded that construction safety could improve significantly by removing "zero" from the safety management lexicon. Its improper and ineffective implementation may have contributed to its tarnished reputation within occupational safety and health (OSH).
In a post-zero era, several strategies could make safety initiatives more effective. Focusing on Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs) rather than aiming for zero across all incidents may enhance workforce engagement. However, fundamentally rethinking construction with safety as the top priority remains a significant challenge.
Alternative metrics, such as High-Energy Control Assessments (HECA), offer a different approach by moving away from direct statistical measures of safety based on incident counts.
Over time, these approaches may naturally phase out the reliance on zero, as evidence strongly suggests that its blanket use does not improve organizational safety performance or benefit workers in the field.
Journal Reference
Sherratt, F., Harch, D., & Perez, A. (2024). Making zero work for construction safety in a post-zero world. Journal of Safety Research, 91, 193–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524001178
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.