I read about a presentation published by Safeguard Online NZ where they had Lloyd and Provan as speakers. The title of the presentation was ‘the model doesn’t matter’. This is the kind of naivety one expects from Safety. Of course, the model matters! Safety is so good at speaking nonsense to people.

This comment comes from the same source that writes a book on leadership and care with no discussion on ‘care ethics’. Indeed, with no discussion on the need for a foundation in ethics to leadership. This is complemented by Provan who supports and sponsors Zero ideology as a ‘noble goal’ (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-not-noble-moral-or-sense-able/). All of this is just more traditional safety packaged in the discourse of ‘differently’. Of course, the SD group have no articulated ethic or method. Why do models matter when a few slogans will do?

So, the model doesn’t matter?

Does a model of violence or a model of care (https://safetyrisk.net/care-ethics-and-the-ethics-of-care-in-risk/) make a difference to how an outcome is achieved? Does a model of a masculinist ethic (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-a-masculinist-activity/) matter when seeking to lead? Does it matter what model of learning (https://safetyrisk.net/what-theory-of-learning-is-embedded-in-your-investigation-methodology/) one adopts when seeking outcomes in education?

All models matter because they are underpinned by a philosophy/methodology that holds a particular ethic of persons. The methodology chosen is evidenced by a method, the method is the ‘doing’ of the methodology. Models matter.

We know that if children see adults enact violence, they see this as a model to follow. If children see males model misogyny, this is normalised. Models matter.

We have seen recently a crisis in childcare in Australia (https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/03/19/what-is-going-wrong-with-childcare-in-australia.html). We have seen the total anger and stress of parents concerned about the current model of childcare. We have seen that the model of profits before child safety matters (https://redflag.org.au/article/profits-before-children-the-crisis-in-australian-child-care). But hey, what do these people know, just tell these parents who have to get their children tested for sexually transmitted disease that the model doesn’t matter.

So, if one has a behaviourist ethic, people are treated as objects and brutalism is the outcome. The model is simply just one of inputs and outputs. Similarly, if one adopts the ideology of zero then injury rates and policing are the outcome, resulting in the brutalism and dehumanisation of persons (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). If one’s investigation model is linear then, one’s investigation methods will be linear. Models matter!

If one adopts a dictatorial model of leadership then people are brutalised. If one models leadership on service and a ‘care ethic’, then people are humanised. Models matter.

Similarly, if one adopts a deontological ethic (AIHS BoK on Ethics, https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/) towards safety, people are brutalised. No wonder one finds nowhere in the safety world any discussion on Care Ethics. Models matter.

Look at the model of learning teams proposed by HOP. In this proposed model one sees quite clearly the dominance of brain-centrism, deontology and rationalism (https://safetyrisk.net/hop-is-traditional-safety/). These matter for how one delivers education, training and learning. Any model focused on brain-centrism understands information as data and is disconnected from other models of embodied learning that view the human person holistically.

The same applies to a focus on performance in HOP. Such a model holds the same traditional focus of safety on measuring performance (https://safetyrisk.net/understanding-the-nature-of-performance-and-hop/; https://safetyrisk.net/semiotic-matters-and-semiotic-influence-in-safety/). All of these models matter because they are all founded on a particular (but never disclosed) ethic. Indeed, a lack of transparency in ethics enables the dehumanisation of persons and the erosion of trust. One can’t speak about the importance of trust as if the model doesn’t matter.

At the foundation of all of this is, the reality that Safety speaks nonsense to people (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-experts-in-speaking-nonsense-to-people/) as if linguistics’, semiotics and language also don’t matter. This is the characteristic of safetyculture that thinks ideology, philosophy, critical thinking and ethics are of little value.

Does it matter whether one adopts a neo-liberal politic or a socialist politic? Of course, it does, because each is founded on an ethic that affects persons in different ways. The privileging of money over persons always results in the brutalism of persons.

Does it matter if one has an ethic of risk that accepts or rejects fallibility? Of course, it does.

There is a huge difference between the model, Methodology and methods of SPoR and those of traditional safety such as those espoused in this article. The focus of SPoR is NOT on systems, process or performance and if you want to know just how different SPoR is, then you can come to the convention and find out (https://safetyrisk.net/spor-convention-15-19-september-2025/). But if you think the model doesn’t matter, do as you like. Bully people in the name of zero and tell them the model doesn’t matter. Police people in safety and tell them the model doesn’t matter.

What and who you focus on and what you model is underpinned by a philosophy/methodology and ethic. So, the model matters.