Stop calling workplace safety failures ‘accidents’
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 […]
