Why “Zero Harm” Can Damage Investigations

Introduction

“Zero Harm” has become one of the most ubiquitous mantras in the modern safety movement. It appears on posters, banners, hard hats, annual reports, and corporate value statements. On the surface, it conveys a noble intent- no one should be injured or killed at work. Yet, beneath the glossy veneer lies a problematic reality: when “Zero Harm” becomes more than an aspiration- when it morphs into an absolute expectation- it can inadvertently distort behaviour, discourage reporting, and undermine the very learning investigations are designed to achieve.

In high-reliability organisations, the ultimate goal is not perfection but continuous learning and risk reduction. Investigations exist to uncover system weaknesses, understand human performance, and strengthen defences. However, a “Zero Harm” narrative can send the wrong signal — that any incident represents a failure, and therefore someone must be to blame.

1. The Origins and Appeal of “Zero Harm”

The “Zero Harm” philosophy emerged from well-intentioned motives. Inspired by approaches in quality (“zero defects”) and aviation (“zero accidents”), it gained traction in the 1990s and 2000s as organisations sought to simplify safety messaging. The slogan’s appeal is obvious:

• It’s simple and positive.

• It signals commitment from leadership.

• It creates a shared aspiration across the workforce.

Executives can easily rally behind “Zero Harm” as a strategic goal because it feels morally unassailable- who would argue for anything less? But while the intention may be pure, the psychological and organisational consequences are complex.

2. The Hidden Assumptions Behind the Slogan

“Zero Harm” carries several implicit assumptions that don’t align with how complex socio-technical systems actually function:

1. All harm is preventable. → In reality, uncertainty, variability, and human adaptability mean risk can never be fully eliminated.

2. Incidents reflect failure. → This creates a binary world: safe or unsafe, compliant or non-compliant, success or failure.

3. Individuals control outcomes. → It often shifts focus onto frontline behaviour rather than organisational systems and latent conditions.

When these assumptions shape organisational thinking, investigations risk devolving into witch hunts rather than learning exercises.

3. The Psychological Impact on Workers

From the perspective of frontline staff, a “Zero Harm” message can be both motivating and threatening. Workers want to meet expectations, but when the expectation is perfection, the cost of failure becomes intolerable.

3.1 Fear of Blame

If harm equates to failure, and failure is unacceptable, individuals will naturally fear being associated with incidents. This can lead to:

• Under-reporting of near misses and hazards.

• Defensive behaviour during interviews.

• Minimising or rationalising unsafe conditions.

Investigations thrive on honesty and openness. “Zero Harm” cultures can inadvertently suppress both.

3.2 Cognitive Dissonance

When workers see slogans proclaiming “We Believe in Zero Harm” while observing injuries or high-risk work, they experience cognitive dissonance. The mismatch between message and reality undermines credibility and breeds cynicism.

3.3 Reduced Psychological Safety

Effective investigations depend on psychological safety- the belief that one can speak up without fear of punishment. “Zero Harm” environments, particularly when tied to performance metrics, can damage that safety.

4. How “Zero Harm” Warps Investigative Mindsets

An investigation shaped by a “Zero Harm” lens is prone to several biases:

4.1 Over-Simplification

If the goal is zero, the cause must be obvious- someone made a mistake. Complex contributing factors (organisational, environmental, latent) are often overlooked in favour of quick fixes or blame.

4.2 Confirmation Bias

Investigators may unconsciously seek evidence that supports the narrative: “If harm occurred, someone must have violated a rule.” This bias distorts data collection and analysis.

4.3 Outcome Bias

The severity of the outcome drives the perceived seriousness of the error. Minor events may be ignored; major events trigger overreaction and punitive responses.

4.4 Inhibited Systems Thinking

“Zero Harm” focuses attention on the absence of injuries, not the presence of capacity. Investigations under this mindset often fail to explore how systems succeed most of the time, and why they occasionally fail.

5. The Impact on Reporting and Data Quality

Investigations can only learn from what is known. When “Zero Harm” creates an atmosphere of fear or denial, reporting systems degrade:

• Near misses go unreported, robbing the organisation of early warning signals.

• Minor injuries may be reclassified or hidden to preserve metrics.

• Unsafe behaviours may be normalised because speaking up is perceived as disloyal.

Poor data means poor learning. A distorted picture of reality leads to complacency: “We’re achieving zero, so our systems must be perfect.”

6. The Cultural Consequences

6.1 The “Illusion of Safety”

Organisations chasing zero can confuse low numbers with low risk. They may celebrate reductions in recordable injuries while overlooking systemic weaknesses. The absence of reported incidents becomes a false indicator of success.

6.2 Erosion of Trust

When workers suspect that leadership values numbers over learning, trust collapses. They may perceive investigations as box-ticking exercises designed to protect the brand rather than uncover the truth.

6.3 Stifled Innovation

A zero mindset discourages experimentation and adaptability. Staff become risk-averse, reluctant to challenge procedures or suggest changes that might expose vulnerabilities.

7. “Zero Harm” and the Blame Cycle

The pressure to maintain perfect records often drives organisations into the blame cycle:

1. Incident occurs →

2. Focus on deviation →

3. Identify rule-breaker →

4. Apply discipline or retraining →

5. Declare issue resolved

This linear approach satisfies the need for closure but fails to address deeper systemic conditions- workload, design flaws, production pressure, and leadership decisions. The same patterns recur, and investigations become rituals of reassurance rather than mechanisms for change.

8. The Contrast with Learning Cultures

High-reliability and learning organisations adopt different principles:

• Failure is inevitable; learning is optional.

• Incidents are information.

• Blame fixes nothing; understanding changes everything.

Instead of zero, they pursue “chronic unease” (Weick & Sutcliffe) and resilience — the ability to detect, adapt, and recover from variation.

Investigations in such cultures aim to discover, not judge.

9. The Research Evidence

Academic studies reinforce these patterns:

• Dekker (2014) argues that zero goals foster “a culture of denial” where incident reporting declines.

• Hopkins (2009) notes that zero targets may shift attention from “learning from failure” to “avoiding blame.”

• Hale & Borys (2013) suggest that performance indicators based on injury absence are “lagging and misleading.”

Collectively, the evidence points to a paradox: chasing zero can increase risk by masking weak signals.

10. The Governance Perspective

From a governance standpoint, “Zero Harm” slogans create perverse incentives. Boards may demand perfect metrics without questioning data integrity. Executives may tie bonuses to recordable rates, incentivising suppression rather than prevention. Regulators and shareholders may misinterpret “zero” as proof of safety maturity, when it may reflect reporting failure.

Robust governance requires transparency, context, and learning metrics- not just outcome metrics.

11. How “Zero Harm” Distorts Recommendation Development

When investigations begin from a zero lens, recommendations often focus on behavioural controls:

• Re-training

• Disciplinary action

• Signage or reminders

These interventions rarely address latent conditions (e.g., design, resourcing, leadership decisions). As a result, the risk of recurrence remains high.

In contrast, ICAM emphasise Organisational Factor Types (OFTs), Absent/Failed Defences, and Latent Conditions. These insights are lost when investigations chase compliance narratives.

12. Building a Culture That Supports Learning Investigations

12.1 Redefine Success

Measure success by the quality of learning, not the absence of incidents. Ask:

• Did we identify systemic weaknesses?

• Did we engage workers honestly?

• Did we implement sustainable improvements?

12.2 Align Messaging

Replace “Zero Harm” with aspirational yet realistic language:

• “Our goal is to continually reduce risk.”

• “Every incident is an opportunity to learn.”

• “We value transparency over perfection.”

12.3 Foster Psychological Safety

Leaders must model vulnerability: admit mistakes, welcome questions, and reward reporting.

12.4 Use Balanced Metrics

Combine lagging indicators (injury rates) with leading indicators (reporting quality, learning actions closed, and similar).

12.5 Train Investigators in Systems Thinking

Equip teams to explore context, complexity, and variability, not just compliance.

13. Practical Steps for Investigators

Investigators can mitigate “Zero Harm” distortions by:

1. Declaring neutrality at the start: “This is about learning, not blame.”

2. Exploring normal work, not just the event.

3. Asking why defences failed, not who failed.

4. Validating findings with the workforce.

5. Reporting cultural influences, including pressure from zero targets.

Documenting how performance expectations shaped decisions is crucial.

14. Communicating Findings in Zero Cultures

When presenting findings in organisations still committed to “Zero Harm,” investigators must navigate politics carefully:

• Frame insights around systemic opportunities, not personal failures.

• Use evidence-based storytelling to show how normal performance drifted.

• Recommend leadership reflection on messaging and metrics.

The goal is to shift the conversation from perfection to progress.

15. Leadership’s Role in Resetting the Narrative

Executives hold the pen that writes culture. To support credible investigations, they must:

• Publicly acknowledge that incidents will occur.

• Model curiosity over judgment.

• Reward transparency even when outcomes are uncomfortable.

• Untie bonuses from zero metrics.

• Communicate learning outcomes regularly.

A learning leader asks: “What did we discover?”, not “Who failed to uphold zero?”

16. The Ethical Dimension

When “Zero Harm” messaging suppresses truth, it becomes an ethical issue. Workers deserve honesty. Families of injured employees deserve accurate explanations. Society expects organisations to learn, not conceal. Integrity in investigations requires truth over image.

17. Conclusion: From Zero to Learning

“Zero Harm” began with good intentions- to affirm the value of human life. Yet, in practice, it can undermine investigations, erode trust, and block learning. Safety is not the absence of accidents; it is the presence of resilience, capacity, and understanding.

Investigations must operate in cultures where failure is information, not disgrace. When we shift from chasing zero to cultivating learning, we unlock the true purpose of investigation — to make tomorrow safer than today.

18. Key Takeaways

• Slogans shape culture. “Zero Harm” may signal commitment, but can foster fear and denial.

• Investigations need truth, not perfection.

• Learning requires psychological safety.

• Metrics drive behaviour. Choose learning metrics over injury metrics.

• Leadership must model curiosity.

Ultimately, the goal is not zero incidents, but infinite learning.