There has been some debate about the credibility of having a ZERO Harm Vision. Many safety practitioners certainly grapple with it.
There is this perception that ZERO HARM means zero injuries, zero incidents, zero risk etc. There is also the belief that ZERO Harm is the only credible vision for an organisation.
The ZERO Harm debate is probably one of my favourite engagement and facilitation question as it gets people talking and thinking about the issue.
It’s a great exercise to get the team to look beyond the number “ZERO” and try and create a frame for: –
What it is? and
What it means?
After countless group facilitations, the consensus is that:
- With Zero Harm – everyone goes home safely at the end of every working day; AND
- Zero Harm means: –
- Working as 1 Team – teams are the solution
- 100% Engagement – everyone on the same page
- Caring for each other
- Being confident to speak up
- Near miss reporting & taking near misses seriously
- Being intimate & literate with the Safety Standards
- Investigating incidents with a prevention mindset
- Participating in training and discussions on SHE
- “Walking the Talk”. Showing all our teams/colleagues and customers that we take safety seriously
- Never compromising or expecting others to compromise on safety
- Getting to ZERO means making safety personal and being empowered to say NO is something is not safe.
- All the above are well practiced
I am confident that teams will all believe and commit to ZERO HARM when it is reframed by looking beyond the number ZERO.