You can’t beat some of the best con’s delivered in the name of safety.

So, when zero doesn’t stick and money can’t be made, the formula is to re-frame the slogan, brand or narrative and invent a new con.

Rebranding old messages seems to be a full-time occupation in safety. When swiss-cheese reaches its used by date, don’t worry, just pull out those Jenga blocks and market the same thing as ‘differently’.  Don’t worry that there is no change in worldview or methodology, Safety won’t notice there is no change anyway.

When critical thinking is the enemy of sacred safety, any marketing seems to fit the bill.

So, what is the logic behind 1% safer? What is the message in this semiotic?

• Am I 1% safer each day? Therefore, I’ll hit zero in 100days?
• Am I 1% safer this year, so I’ll hit zero when I’m 100?
• Am I 1% safer this month, so I’ll get to zero I less than 2 years.

The semiotic of 1% safer is just zero disguised as incrementalism.

Incremental safety (Hollnagel) is just re-branding and marketing of old S2, Resilience Engineering (declared RIP). It is clear in safety, that when one idea dies, a new sacred cow must be created.

So, when you dig underneath the Jenga blocks and 1% safer symbolism, is there a new method or methodology? No. It’s just the same old safety in the Emperor’s new clothes.

Just because the word ‘zero’ is not used doesn’t mean it is not infused in the concept.

Just because the linear nonsense of Reason’s swiss-cheese is not obvious doesn’t mean that the idea of prevention by blocking holes in safety systems is not present. The symbolism of Jenga blocks is just traditional safety with a new brand. Even in the image used, there’s a mouse in the symbolism so you can make the link to Reason.

And it’s easy and simple to market. Just stop the blocks from being pulled out of your safety system and thou shalt be saved. There is nothing new in any of this. It’s just changed semiotics but same methodology.

And when you are dealing with an industry that adores and worships compliance, repels critical thinking and discourse analysis, this is what heats up the market. A new yo-yo with a different brand (https://safetyrisk.net/the-yo-yo-delusion-and-conversations-about-risk/).

Without a shift in methodology and methods, there will be no new movement in safety.