The Critical Outcome is to Improve Safety

One of the sad characteristics of the safety-zero industry is the fear of critical thought from a Transdisciplinary source. We know this is so because compliance, control, counting and telling are key features of the culture of safety.

What happens when criticism of safety and an alternative is offered is NOT an exploration of the value or practicality of what is offered but rather a demonisation of the critical thinking as anti-safety. The opposite is the case.

There can be no movement or improvement in safety without debate, critical thinking and a practical alternative.

If you are happy with what you are doing in safety at the moment then this blog is not for you. However, if you are unhappy with what is being done in safety or what you are being asked to do in safety then, read on.

  • It simply doesn’t make sense to continue with traditional methods in risk assessment if they don’t work. More so when these methods are not a legal defence ( )
  • It is crazy to think that pushing harder within traditional safety methods will somehow create innovation or improvement.
  • Nothing can improve in methods in safety unless there is shift in methodology (philosophy). If you can’t leave behind the brutalism of zero, BBS and engineering then keep doing more of the same. Good luck.
  • It’s equally as illogical to think that slogans and mantras are methods and will somehow make safety better. You can repeat the word ‘zero’ or ‘differently’ as often as you want but nothing changes. In the end, all that is on offer is the same old safety stuff and there is no choice except to use traditional methods of risk assessment (that don’t work).
  • Similarly, you can demonise criticism of safety if you like but all that does is help more deeply embed confirmation bias in methods that don’t work.

By ‘working’ we mean ‘working better and in humanising methods that improve safety’. You can read a case study of such improvement here

This is why in SPoR we offer an alternative ( It is about disposing of zero so that safety can improve (

We don’t’ just criticise zero for entertainment, we criticise zero because it is harmful ( Why would Safety want the very opposite of what it says it wants to do? I guess you couldn’t understand this unless you could think critically.

If you want to get started in understanding SPoR we offer two free online courses (video series).

Free SPoR Intro

Free Due Diligence

or if you want to speak to an expert in SPoR anywhere across the globe, there is someone near you who could help. If you want to know more you can also email or download any of the free materials on offer:


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.