The theory that accidents and injuries are primarily caused by unsafe acts and behavior is widely held in the safety profession. This accounts for the popularity of behavior based safety (BBS) programs. But I submit that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. It’s my contention that behavioral theories and programs are fundamentally flawed. Here’s why.

The Theory & Validity of Behavior Based Safety

Much of what many safety practitioners still believe and practice stems from W. H. Heinrich’s 1931 book, Industrial Accident Prevention. Heinrich was an Assistant Superintendent of the Engineering and Inspection Division of Travelers Insurance Company during the 1930s and 1940s. In his influential book, Heinrich contended that accidents are caused by unsafe acts and conditions. Unsafe acts, Heinrich asserted, account for 88% of accidents while unsafe conditions account for 10%.

Heinrich’s theory is still embraced as the gospel, especially among advocates of BBS. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard Heinrich’s 88% assertion cited in safety conferences, articles, presentations, books and online fora. Now here’s what blows my mind. Heinrich’s theories were essentially opinions. According to the late Dan Petersen, the assertion that 88% of accidents are the result of unsafe act was Heinrich’s “first axiom and something that he just made up. There was no research behind it whatsoever.” (Source: http://www.occupationalhazards.com/News/Article/32659/Dan_Petersen_Why_Safety_is_a.aspx)

If Petersen is right that there’s no objective evidence to validate or verify Heinrich’s assertion, why is so much time, money and effort directed to BBS? The simple answer, in my opinion, is money and marketing. BBS is big business. But is it as effective as the marketers and consultants claim? Where does it fit in? And at the end of the day, who benefits most from BBS? Businesses? Workers? Or BBS consultants?

Methods & Management Systems to Control Hazards

Was Heinrich right? Are 88% of accidents really the result of unsafe behavior? I doubt it. Any safety practitioner that has conducted an objective incident investigation realizes that incidents and injuries are caused not by any single factor but a number of them, each one of which requires investigation and analysis.

As Petersen notes, "behind every unsafe condition, there is a management system that allowed the hazard to exist." Behavior isn’t something that just happens. There are reasons that people engage in a particular unsafe act or behavior. Petersen posits that in many cases, the reasons for the behavior can be traced back to some aspect of the management system, i.e., the way people are measured and rewarded. Stated differently, something in the organization’s culture has made people feel that it’s okay to engage in unsafe behavior. According to Petersen, managers must treat the causes of accidents not simply as a product of behavior but as "a combination of a management system and a culture or environment that leads to human error."

One of the first reasoned and modern examinations of the causes of workplace accidents is the 1976 report from the Ham Commission, a body created by the Ontario government during a strike to study health and safety in uranium mines. Commissioner Dr. James M. Ham takes aim at the Heinrich theory in his Report of the Royal Commission on the Health & Safety of Workers in Mines: "The Commission believes that emphasis on unsafe conditions and unsafe acts falsely dichotomizes and generally oversimplifies the organic circumstances out of which accidents arise." The most compelling and reasoned aspect of the Ham report notes:

"In the hearings before the Commission, there were two particular points of emphasis in relation to accidents, unsafe conditions and unsafe acts. Some workers’ representatives emphasized the former, and some management representatives the latter. Unsafe conditions may have their origin in unclearly defined and communicated management objectives. They may arise through defects of plant and mine design, through methods of work inadequate in themselves or inadequately supervised, and through tools, equipment and processes inadequately maintained. Unsafe acts of any person may originate in want of vigilance, training, skill, physical strength or judgment when all conditions of work are otherwise within standards. . . The apparently common view that the great majority of accidents are the direct result of nothing more than unsafe acts or unsafe conditions is, in the Commission’s opinion, too restricted a view of the human problem of accidental injuries. Workmen and their supervisors at every level may act unwisely, but they do so within a system for the performance of work whose responsibility it is to set clear and supervised standards of what is expected.”

BBS & Incident Occurrence: New Study Shows No Relationship

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) recently published a refreshingly candid study called “An Examination of Observations and Incidence Rates for a Behavior Based Safety Program” that examines the BBS program of an oil production platform located off the coast of West Africa. According to the study: “No relationship has been found between the observations of the BBS program and incidence occurrence.” The researchers found no evidence that the BBS program increased “safe” behaviors or decreased “at-risk” behaviors and incidence occurrence. This finding is significant considering the time commitment that performing such observations represents. The entire study can be found at: http://www.asse.org/academicsjournal/archive/vol4no3/feature05.php

Conclusion

Over the last 10 years, most of the studies and stories that purport to evaluate the effectiveness of BBS programs come from BBS advocates and consultants themselves. But objective sources like the Ham Commission and the ASSE study cast doubt on the theoretical foundation of BBS that most accidents and injuries in the workplace are caused by unsafe behavior. If managing behavior isn’t the key to safety what is? I’ll suggest an answer next week, in Part 2.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top