July 6, 2025 • 8 mins
Is Zero Harm a laudable approach or a misdirection--an illusion--associated with higher fatality rates?
This episode dives into the paper from: Sherratt, F., & Dainty, A. R. (2017). UK construction safety: a zero paradox?. Policy and practice in health and safety, 15(2), 108-116.
Feel free to shout me a coffee to support my site &podcasts: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson
More research at SafetyInsights.Org
Intro/Output "Dark Synth Wave" by ElephantGreen(PixaBay.com)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:07):
For decades, the mantra of 0 harm has echoed through our
industries. For some, it's the ultimate
goal, the only acceptable goal. A clear beacon for safety,
apparently. But what if the very philosophy
intended to protect workers was actually linked to more serious
accidents and even fatalities? This week, we're diving into a
(00:29):
controversial yet debated paper which questions whether pursuing
0 might create a dangerous paradox, inadvertently
increasing the very risks it aims to counter.
Good day, everyone. I'm Ben Hutchinson, This is Safe
as a podcast dedicated to the thrifty analysis of safety, risk
and performance research. Visit safetyinsights.org for
(00:50):
more research. So this well known and debated
paper explored the links betweenmajor and fatal accidents in
companies that have and haven't adopted A0 harm philosophy.
It's from SHAREit and Dainty 2017, published in Policy and
Practise in Health and Safety. So what were the methods?
(01:11):
They collected fatal and major accident data from the UK HSC
under a Freedom of Information request over the periods of 2011
two, 1012 and 2014 two 1015. This data was then correlated to
the top 20 construction contractors in the UK based on
turnover. Essentially, they looked online
(01:31):
at the company's web pages, findout which ones had openly
adopted 0 harm philosophies 9 had an explicit 0 policy in
place. Six companies operated a safety
programme referencing 0, while the other three included clear
statements around 0 providing background.
The authors argue in their paperzero has become the biggest
(01:54):
number in safety despite the prevalence of 0 in industry.
The lack of an evidence based evaluation of 0 is really rather
surprising. 0's been mobilised in many ways. 0 Harm beyond
zero, Vision Zero and more. Some position as a visionary
journey, adopted as a principle for organisational management
(02:14):
and leadership rather than a specific goal.
For others, 0 is a specific target with 0 injuries and
fatalities is the only acceptable value or goal.
Some research found 0 programmesoften positioned as a tangible
goal, something which can be counted and measured through a
plethora of targets. However, in one study, this
(02:35):
utopia was challenged and even derided by the construction
workers themselves, for whom thelived realities their working
lives told them that zero is andis likely to remain a utopian
fantasy totally incompatible with the current challenges of
production that they face every day.
Also, as argued in this paper, critics believe zero may stymie
(02:57):
open dialogue and learning in organisations.
Proponents argue that many construction organisations have
zeros wrong, they're not doing it right and focus on the
numbers instead of the vision toinspire real change and
innovation in practise. Others have argued that zero in
any form can act as a distraction because of its
allure of measurement. Thus 0, in their view, creates a
(03:21):
misdirection in efforts to ceaseall harm rather than the harm
that really matters, and stifling both learning and
reporting in an industry which already struggles to report its
accidents and incidents in an honest and timely fashion.
So with that background out of the way, what did this study
find? Well, overall this data set
suggests that working on a project subject to A0 safety
(03:44):
policy or a programme actually appears to slightly increase the
likelihood of having a serious life changing accident or
fatality, what they called a zero paradox.
But importantly, the authors were careful to highlight both
the limitations of the study data and that they make no
claims about causality. For instance, we know of the
(04:06):
statistical issues of incident data validity and also the
possibility of other explanations, like perhaps
companies that operate in more hazardous industries might be
more likely to adopt 0 as a response.
I'll cover more of the limitations and caveats later,
so let's jump into some of the specifics.
They found 4 fatal accidents occurred in zero companies.
(04:28):
No fatal accidents occurred in non zero companies.
The 214 major failures in companies with 0 and there was
135 major injuries in companies without zero safety approach.
When correlated to the volume ofwork, there were seven major or
specified accidents per million turnover for those with zero and
(04:50):
six accidents per billion turnover for those without 0.
So taken together, the authors argue that a zero paradox could
be in play where you are marginally more likely to be
involved in a major accident while working on a 0 project
compared to a non 0. Or, as they aptly state, being
involved in a 0 affiliated UK construction project could,
(05:11):
according to paper, actually mean a greater risk of injury or
death. In practise, again, there's such
a small difference between the adopters and non adopters it's
difficult to know whether this is actually a real statistical
effect. In any case, they further argue
that based on this data, at least 0 approaches would seem to
struggle to be labelled a success, with more accidents
(05:33):
rather than fewer under A0 safety banner, or at least no
real determinable difference. The zero possibly hasn't made
positive or negative contributions to practise, or
perhaps even a negative impact suggests that the rhetoric of 0
is masking the reality of construction site safety
programmes which are neither innovating nor developing in
(05:54):
their thinking or practise. Beyond the application of this
new branding, the author suggests that perhaps the UK
construction industry simply isn't mature enough for 0 as a
target or vision. However, considering the
findings of this study, it's possible that the DIS benefits
outweigh the benefits and again,perhaps 0 is causing more harm
(06:17):
than is able to prevent. This data suggests, even with
its limitations, that there is at least the potential for an
increase in accidents following the introduction of 0.
Safety on site. Further, there's no guarantee
that the implementation of 0 safety can ensure continued or
even any reduction in accident rates overall and indeed seems
(06:39):
to have a limited impact in terms of catalysing any
significant step changes in improvement in safety
performance. So what were the limitations?
Well, we've already covered somecritical limitations expanding
here. There's just four years of data
and we're dealing with incidents.
Incidents are really problematic.
(07:00):
So Helliwell's data previously suggested that incidents are
highly readily distributed. It's really difficult to find
correlations with that gigantic data sets.
We also don't know how comparable each organisation is,
so whether we really can cleanlycompare like for like apples for
apples. So what do we make of the
findings? So cards on the table.
(07:22):
I am not a supporter of 0 harm approaches, but I think sensibly
it's a single study. We shouldn't make too much, but
nevertheless it does help shift the burden of evidence.
We actually don't have much evidence for or against on the
effects of 0 harm approaches in safety.
More importantly, I think arguments for or against 0 harm
(07:46):
approaches probably make too much of these arguments.
What I mean is, assuming that 0 harm approaches will somehow
statistically significantly impact performance, good or bad,
is probably optimistic at best. In any case, I concur with Drew,
Ray and Dave Proven on the Safety of Work podcast.
If you don't already have a 0 harm approach, adopting it may
(08:09):
not meet your needs. If you already have one, then
reconsider the targets, the expectations and the messaging
just to ensure that it is meeting your needs.
Is 0 an illusion in your organisation Because people are
afraid of reporting in fear of disrupting the statistics or
hopes of a pizza party? That's it on Safe as I'm Ben
(08:32):
Hutchinson, please help share, rate and review and
checkoutsafetyinsights.org for more research.
Finally, feel free to support Safe As by shouting a coffee
link in the show notes.
For decades, the mantra of 0 harm has echoed through our
industries. For some, it's the ultimate
goal, the only acceptable goal. A clear beacon for safety,
apparently. But what if the very philosophy
intended to protect workers was actually linked to more serious
accidents and even fatalities? This week, we're diving into a
(00:29):
controversial yet debated paper which questions whether pursuing
0 might create a dangerous paradox, inadvertently
increasing the very risks it aims to counter.
Good day, everyone. I'm Ben Hutchinson, This is Safe
as a podcast dedicated to the thrifty analysis of safety, risk
and performance research. Visit safetyinsights.org for
(00:50):
more research. So this well known and debated
paper explored the links betweenmajor and fatal accidents in
companies that have and haven't adopted A0 harm philosophy.
It's from SHAREit and Dainty 2017, published in Policy and
Practise in Health and Safety. So what were the methods?
(01:11):
They collected fatal and major accident data from the UK HSC
under a Freedom of Information request over the periods of 2011
two, 1012 and 2014 two 1015. This data was then correlated to
the top 20 construction contractors in the UK based on
turnover. Essentially, they looked online
(01:31):
at the company's web pages, findout which ones had openly
adopted 0 harm philosophies 9 had an explicit 0 policy in
place. Six companies operated a safety
programme referencing 0, while the other three included clear
statements around 0 providing background.
The authors argue in their paperzero has become the biggest
(01:54):
number in safety despite the prevalence of 0 in industry.
The lack of an evidence based evaluation of 0 is really rather
surprising. 0's been mobilised in many ways. 0 Harm beyond
zero, Vision Zero and more. Some position as a visionary
journey, adopted as a principle for organisational management
(02:14):
and leadership rather than a specific goal.
For others, 0 is a specific target with 0 injuries and
fatalities is the only acceptable value or goal.
Some research found 0 programmesoften positioned as a tangible
goal, something which can be counted and measured through a
plethora of targets. However, in one study, this
(02:35):
utopia was challenged and even derided by the construction
workers themselves, for whom thelived realities their working
lives told them that zero is andis likely to remain a utopian
fantasy totally incompatible with the current challenges of
production that they face every day.
Also, as argued in this paper, critics believe zero may stymie
(02:57):
open dialogue and learning in organisations.
Proponents argue that many construction organisations have
zeros wrong, they're not doing it right and focus on the
numbers instead of the vision toinspire real change and
innovation in practise. Others have argued that zero in
any form can act as a distraction because of its
allure of measurement. Thus 0, in their view, creates a
(03:21):
misdirection in efforts to ceaseall harm rather than the harm
that really matters, and stifling both learning and
reporting in an industry which already struggles to report its
accidents and incidents in an honest and timely fashion.
So with that background out of the way, what did this study
find? Well, overall this data set
suggests that working on a project subject to A0 safety
(03:44):
policy or a programme actually appears to slightly increase the
likelihood of having a serious life changing accident or
fatality, what they called a zero paradox.
But importantly, the authors were careful to highlight both
the limitations of the study data and that they make no
claims about causality. For instance, we know of the
(04:06):
statistical issues of incident data validity and also the
possibility of other explanations, like perhaps
companies that operate in more hazardous industries might be
more likely to adopt 0 as a response.
I'll cover more of the limitations and caveats later,
so let's jump into some of the specifics.
They found 4 fatal accidents occurred in zero companies.
(04:28):
No fatal accidents occurred in non zero companies.
The 214 major failures in companies with 0 and there was
135 major injuries in companies without zero safety approach.
When correlated to the volume ofwork, there were seven major or
specified accidents per million turnover for those with zero and
(04:50):
six accidents per billion turnover for those without 0.
So taken together, the authors argue that a zero paradox could
be in play where you are marginally more likely to be
involved in a major accident while working on a 0 project
compared to a non 0. Or, as they aptly state, being
involved in a 0 affiliated UK construction project could,
(05:11):
according to paper, actually mean a greater risk of injury or
death. In practise, again, there's such
a small difference between the adopters and non adopters it's
difficult to know whether this is actually a real statistical
effect. In any case, they further argue
that based on this data, at least 0 approaches would seem to
struggle to be labelled a success, with more accidents
(05:33):
rather than fewer under A0 safety banner, or at least no
real determinable difference. The zero possibly hasn't made
positive or negative contributions to practise, or
perhaps even a negative impact suggests that the rhetoric of 0
is masking the reality of construction site safety
programmes which are neither innovating nor developing in
(05:54):
their thinking or practise. Beyond the application of this
new branding, the author suggests that perhaps the UK
construction industry simply isn't mature enough for 0 as a
target or vision. However, considering the
findings of this study, it's possible that the DIS benefits
outweigh the benefits and again,perhaps 0 is causing more harm
(06:17):
than is able to prevent. This data suggests, even with
its limitations, that there is at least the potential for an
increase in accidents following the introduction of 0.
Safety on site. Further, there's no guarantee
that the implementation of 0 safety can ensure continued or
even any reduction in accident rates overall and indeed seems
(06:39):
to have a limited impact in terms of catalysing any
significant step changes in improvement in safety
performance. So what were the limitations?
Well, we've already covered somecritical limitations expanding
here. There's just four years of data
and we're dealing with incidents.
Incidents are really problematic.
(07:00):
So Helliwell's data previously suggested that incidents are
highly readily distributed. It's really difficult to find
correlations with that gigantic data sets.
We also don't know how comparable each organisation is,
so whether we really can cleanlycompare like for like apples for
apples. So what do we make of the
findings? So cards on the table.
(07:22):
I am not a supporter of 0 harm approaches, but I think sensibly
it's a single study. We shouldn't make too much, but
nevertheless it does help shift the burden of evidence.
We actually don't have much evidence for or against on the
effects of 0 harm approaches in safety.
More importantly, I think arguments for or against 0 harm
(07:46):
approaches probably make too much of these arguments.
What I mean is, assuming that 0 harm approaches will somehow
statistically significantly impact performance, good or bad,
is probably optimistic at best. In any case, I concur with Drew,
Ray and Dave Proven on the Safety of Work podcast.
If you don't already have a 0 harm approach, adopting it may
(08:09):
not meet your needs. If you already have one, then
reconsider the targets, the expectations and the messaging
just to ensure that it is meeting your needs.
Is 0 an illusion in your organisation Because people are
afraid of reporting in fear of disrupting the statistics or
hopes of a pizza party? That's it on Safe as I'm Ben
(08:32):
Hutchinson, please help share, rate and review and
checkoutsafetyinsights.org for more research.
Finally, feel free to support Safe As by shouting a coffee
link in the show notes.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.