I had to have a laugh when I read this pseudo-research on zero (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524001178 ). One thing is most certain. If you want critical research that considers ethical and moral meaning, don’t ask Safety.
The paper starts out assuming there is some kind of ‘debate’ about zero. No, there is no debate about zero. Zero is absolute and worshipped by Safety absolutely. Zero is the global mantra for safety since 2017 and last year in Sydney at the global zero conference was re-endorsed as the meaning and purpose for the industry (https://safetyrisk.net/safetyzero-culture/). Don’t you know, when global safety gets together it’s called a ‘zero event’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-global-zero-event-this-is-safety/) and sponsored and endorsed by a host of mainstream safety organisations, associations and regulators like Sentis, Forgeworks, AIHS, ICAM, NSCA, SafetyCulture etc (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/). If you want to know who are the lovers of zero look no further.
Didn’t you know, because the Safety Science Lab will tell you, zero is a moral goal (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/). Just more safety nonsense with not a clue of moral or ethical philosophy.
Of course, all of this comes from an industry with not a clue about moral philosophy or ethics. And, this paper simply endorses how bankrupt the industry is of any critical thinking when it comes to ethics or morality concerning zero.
This so-called research never defines what it means by what ‘works’, other than endorsing the numeric assumption put forward by zero ideology (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). How convenient.
The purpose of this paper is supposedly to:
‘In this paper we seek to further unpack zero; seeking potential ways to make zero work in a post-zero world, particularly for the construction industry’.
What kind of gobbledygook is this?
So, the paper doesn’t want to unpack zero it simply wants to make zero ‘work’ whatever that means. Then the authors go on to claim they are critical of zero. Sure, and Santa flies tonight from the North Pole.
This is such a shabby approach to thinking about zero, premised on the absurd idea that zero can be validated by empirical research. Of course, the so-called research is limited to traditional safety thinking, that echo-chamber of the likes of Dekker, the OSHA, Cooper etc.
The paper acknowledges that zero is an absolute but in no place considers for a second, that demanding an absolute (and perfection) from fallible mortals can only ever lead to brutalism and dehumanising outcomes. That is, zero cannot ‘work’ and never can ‘work’. This is because setting an expectation of perfection is a moral projection that can NEVER ‘work’.
There is so much amateurish stuff in this paper one should not be surprised. Yet, the paper, like most safety sources, loves to claim the word ‘professional’. There is nothing professional about this research. The limit of the references is breath-taking.
The beginning of trying to establish if anything ‘works’ in safety is, understanding any demand of humans, as a moral expectation.
Nothing in this paper acknowledges any moral, ethical, power-focused or political issue and therefore has nothing to offer in critical thinking about zero. It’s just more un-professional echo-chamber safety, massaging its own bias in yet another half-baked approach to zero that in the end, endorses more of its own nonsense.
brhttps://safetyrisk.net/how-do-you-know-zero-doesnt-work/
Prompt