By Paul Jarvie, EMA Manager of Employment Relations & Safety

With the Government signalling that significant reform of our workplace health and safety regulations are on the way, it’s time to look at the language we use around preventable harms.

For too long, ‘accident’ has been a blanket term that absolves responsibility. Whether at home, on the road, or in our workplaces, we’ve grown accustomed to shrugging off incidents as ‘accidents’. But are they truly random acts beyond our control, or is there more to the story?

When we label something an ‘accident’, we imply innocence and inevitability. It’s a linguistic shrug that suggests nothing could have been done differently. But the reality, backed by extensive research, paints a different picture.

Insurance companies that provide cover for ‘accidental damage’ base their premiums entirely on historical data of such events. They know these events will happen, how many, when and how.

The premium setting process uses vast databases to ensure the number of claims do not exceed their premium income – that’s how they remain in business. It’s a similar system to ACC for injury claims.

In 2023, ACC handled nearly 200,000 workplace claims, with many stemming from repeat incidents that were likely to have been identified in companies’ hazard registers.

As such, they were neither unknown nor unforeseen. This data underscores the need for a more nuanced approach in our safety lexicon.

In workplaces, terms like ‘incident’ or ‘near miss’ are often used interchangeably with ‘accident’. Yet, these terms don’t adequately capture the essence of what really happened: a failure in systems, procedures or human judgement that resulted in harm or damage.

Take aviation, where research from the Pilot Institute found that pilot error accounted for 69.1% of plane crashes, with 17.2% due to mechanical issues and 13% of unknown cause.

Even legally, the term ‘accident’ can be problematic. In cases of dangerous driving leading to convictions, calling them accidents undermines the severity of the offense and diminishes accountability.

The British Medical Journal, among others, has moved away from using ‘accident’ precisely because it fails to acknowledge the preventable nature of most injuries.

When we say ‘accident’, we obscure the fact that hazards and risks were often identified beforehand – through hazard registers, risk assessments and safety protocols.

Let’s reframe our approach. Instead of accidents, let’s call them what they often are: failure events.

This term not only reflects a more accurate depiction of what occurred but also shifts our focus to improving systems and processes to fail safely when incidents do occur.

By embracing terms like ‘failure event’, we acknowledge that incidents are not inevitable but are often the result of foreseeable risks and inadequate mitigations.

This shift isn’t just about semantics – it’s about fostering a culture of proactive risk management and continuous improvement.

As we move forward, let’s celebrate successes in risk mitigation rather than merely recording failures. Let’s invest in safer systems that reduce the likelihood of failure events occurring.

And let’s hold ourselves accountable by using language that reflects the realities of workplace safety.

Finally, let’s retire ‘accident’ from our vocabulary where it inaccurately masks preventable harm. Instead, let’s embrace ‘failure event’ – a term that compels us to learn, adapt, and prioritise safety above all else.

Because, in the end, what we call things matters. And calling incidents what they truly are – failure events – moves us closer to a safer, more accountable future.

We invite you to take part in an EMA initiative to inform our submission to Government on the upcoming health and safety review. The 10 minutes it takes to fill in this survey could alter the future of health and safety in New Zealand. Be a leader and make a difference.