Ten years ago, Dr Craig Ashhurst, Greg Smith and Dr Rob Long got together to do a video series on myths in safety called Risky Conversations, The Law, Social Psychology and Risk. The result was the publication of 22 videos, a book and audio book. You can access them here for free;

This series has over 50,000 thousand downloads over the ten years but sadly, not much has changed in that time in the risk and safety industry. Indeed, the myths of safety continue to be more amplified than ever, regardless of all the ‘innovation’ summits and conferences trotted out each year (https://safetyrisk.net/propaganda-marketing-and-repetition-in-safety/). These days, when I see ‘innovation safety’ I know its translation simply means, ‘more entertainment, no change’.

Several of the discussions in the Risky Conversations video series, raise the issue of language and the implications of language used in safety. One video in particular (video 9. BHP) serves as a case study, demonstrating that the language you use in safety will be held against you in a court, should something go wrong.

The idea that you can just throw slogans about an organisation as if there will be no consequence is not supported by the facts. In this case (Video 9. BHP), following a fatality, the organisation’s language from an induction was brought up in the court and used by the prosecution to demonstrate liability.

One of the many myths in safety is that, language has no meaning. The belief is, you can say whatever you want like ‘zero plus 1’, ‘1% safer’, ‘blame fixes nothing’ etc. and there will be no consequence. You can even call safety a ‘circus’, ‘a pre-accident’ or ‘punk rock’ or whatever language you think is cute and marketable at the time, but ultimately a clever lawyer will find it when needed in a prosecution.

If you don’t know much about lawyers, courts or the law, and you are in safety, then you should know that language matters. If something goes wrong and you find your self in court, you could be in the dock for days, even weeks. And, a smart legal team will have already been through every document, policy, process, paper record, induction and more, by the time witnesses and testimonies are required. This is not to scare you but rather to put some context and reality on the use of language in safety.

If you decide to speak gobbledygook to people in safety (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-vision-creates-mindless-gobbledygook/) don’t be surprised that a clever lawyer will use that linguistic nonsense against you in court.

Unfortunately, there is no study of linguistics or Poetics in safety and so, consciousness and sensitivity to the use of language in the industry is poor.

You may think something is a harmless slogan, you can even claim that it means something else, or that you ‘operationalise’ it differently, but let me tell you, lawyers are experts in linguistics, language, definition and congruence. I would suggest not trying to play language games in court, when you are already out of your depth.

In the video series I would suggest watching video 21 on ‘root cause’ and video 5 on ‘ALARP’. Both of these videos also deal with sensitivity to language in safety. I notice too that Greg Smith is conducting workshops on Safety Literacy (https://everi.com.au/event/33446402-a/greg-smith-safety-literacy-brisbane-tour-28-30-october-2025) next week in Brisbane. If you want a dose of safety reality I’d go along. If you want a lesson in why literacy matters in safety, don’t miss it. And if you think your safety training makes you a lawyer, definitely attend!

One of the things we do in SPoR is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA is foundational in any work in Social Psychology, Poetics or Linguistics (https://safetyrisk.net/discourse-analysis-safety-alerts-and-safety-boards/). And it doesn’t matter where you throw your language, on LinkedIn, social media, a podcast or in the lunchroom. When something goes wrong and the lawyers are called in, everything is up for grabs.

So, as a good test of your language just add two words at the end of your slogan or phrase. Just add the words ‘your honour’ and see how it sounds.

Hmmm, ‘blame fixes nothing, your honour’! Yes, I can tell you how well that will sound in court. ‘We just called safety a circus, your honour’! ‘All accidents are preventable, your honour’! It’s a pretty effective test. ‘Human error is inevitable, your honour’! You get the idea.

In the end, if your language is NOT legally defendable, get rid of it, regardless of what your safety guru made up. Just because your tribe or club likes some slogan and calls it a ‘principle’ doesn’t mean it will make sense outside the club. Lawyers and the court have no interest in your club when there is a prosecution to conduct.

If you are interested in learning more about the linguistics of safety, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/linguistics-flyer-unit-21/ or seek coaching here: admin@spor.com.au