EMA’s Paul Jarvie: Stop calling workplace safety failures ‘accidents’

OPINION

• The Government plans significant reform of workplace health and safety regulations, focusing on preventable harms.
• The term ‘accident’ often absolves responsibility, obscuring the preventable nature of many incidents.
• Replacing ‘accident’ with ‘failure event’ encourages proactive risk management and accountability in workplace safety.

With the Government signalling significant reform of workplace health and safety regulations is 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 does 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 the hazard registers of companies. As such, they were neither unknown nor unforeseen. Indeed, following an “accident”, the investigation usually highlights that staff have been reporting the failure over time, or they often state “that always happens” — again, hardly unforeseen. This data underscores the need for a more nuanced approach in our safety lexicon.

In workplaces, terms such as “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 judgment that resulted in harm or damage.

Even legally, the term “accident” can be problematic. In cases of dangerous driving leading to convictions, calling them accidents undermines the severity of the offence 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 such as “failure event”, we acknowledge 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.