Could ‘zero harm' be killing people?

InterSafe Group consultant Phillip Byard says ‘zero harm’ distracts employers from the most important safety issues: “In recent years, there has been widespread adoption of the notion of ‘zero harm’. Zero incidents, zero accidents, zero harm, zero tolerance - the goal is zero.

“Moral outrage would ensue if any legislation considered any level of workplace personal damage acceptable. The concept of zero harm may be socially, politically and legally attractive but is the concept of zero harm helpful? Is it possible that we are managing what matters least?”

Damage creates a hierarchy of consequences. Fatalities are a higher-level consequence than first-aid treatments.

“The impact of a fatality on lives, families, organisations and communities is significantly greater than a scratch on a hand,” Byard explains. “Secondly, the number of occurrences for higher levels of damage is much smaller than the number of occurrences for lower levels of damage. Fatalities are few in number, but have highest level consequence. First-aid treatments are many in number but have lowest level actual consequences. In its purest form, ‘zero harm’ ignores all this.”

Byard classifies the consequence of injury into three damage classes:

• Class I: Permanently alters a person’s future - The person is unable to fully return to work, or life, regardless of medical or surgical intervention. Damaging occurrences in Class I include: multiple fatalities; single fatalities; and permanently disabling outcomes; or non-fatal permanent damage (NFPD) such as amputations, impaired backs or shoulders; or psychological disturbance.
• Class II: Temporarily alters a person’s future - The person is able to fully return to work and life after appropriate medical intervention. The body has the capability of complete functional restoration. Typical injuries include broken bones, lacerations or strained muscles.
• Class III: Only inconveniences a person - Persons are quickly able to return to work and life. Class III damage includes minor cuts, bruises or abrasions. In many cases, people continue to work and live with Class III damage without medical intervention. In some cases, application of ice or a bandaid simply speeds up recovery.

Pointing to statistics released this year by the Australian Safety Compensation Council, Byard says that in 2005/06, Class I permanent damage represented only 10% of the captured incidents but 90% of captured costs to employers, employees and the community: “A Pareto or 80/20 relationship exists. Current classification systems based on LTIs and treatment regimes do not clearly focus efforts and resources towards permanently life-altering outcomes.

“Most government jurisdictions and organisations measure workplace safety performance by lag indicators of fatalities and LTIs. Many organisations report their success by frequency rates associated with these measures. But, as Einstein said: ‘Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted’.

“Driving employers to reduce their LTI frequency rates (LTIFR) will predictably focus organisational efforts and strategies on reducing the majority of LTIs, which are short-duration Class II damaging occurrences.

“This focus has at least two undesirable consequences:

• We encourage employers to keep damaged people at work. Managers and workers report a range of strategies used by their organisations to avoid recording an LTI. Workplace personal damage that, 10 years ago, would have resulted in an LTI where recovery was achieved away from work, is now managed by keeping people at work during recovery. An improving LTIFR could be more a measure of the success of a rehabilitation program and less a measure of the success of a workplace safety program.
• We encourage focus and strategies on short-term Class II, not Class I NFPD. Only 14% of all LTIs are Class I NFPD. It would be possible for an organisation to see a reducing LTIFR, but have no improvement in the reduction of Class I NFPD.”

Byard adds that ‘zero harm’ suggests every damaging occurrence is unacceptable from a Class I fatality to a Class III paper cut: “The inevitable and logical conclusion of the zero harm proposition is that resources will not be allocated appropriately. Current safety activity needs a clear focus. The goal of eliminating Class I permanent damage is the only ethical and moral position that a government or employer can hold. Any other position inappropriately allocates resources away from effectively managing potential life-changing experiences at work. This is the only harm that at the end of the day actually matters.”