Vision Zero in Workplaces

Abstract

Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions contribute to more than 2.3 million deaths globally each year. Vision Zero (VZ) in workplaces presents the challenge to prevent all serious accidents and work-related sickness and disease. Companies and other organizations play a key role, in the development and implementation of VZ, and are supported by international organizations such as the International Labour Organization and the International Social Security Association (ISSA). VZ in workplaces has a long history and several roots, which explain the variety in its application. It is both conceptually and practically closely associated with the development of a broad prevention culture, focusing on the safety, health, and well-being of the workforce as an integrated part of business. VZ in workplaces has developed quickly since the Seoul Declaration (2008), whereby global occupational safety and health leaders and representatives of national governments expressed their will to create a worldwide culture of prevention. In particular, the ISSA launched a global VZ strategy and campaign in 2017, which now (in 2021) runs in more than 80 countries. VZ policies and strategies for both road traffic and workplaces are overlapping and can strengthen each other, as roads are an important place of work in many jobs. The implementation of VZ in workplaces should be regarded as a commitment strategy, based on genuine commitment of both top leaders and all personnel. It is important that VZ in workplaces is understood as a vision and a long-term ambition, not as a target. Proactive leading indicators are therefore more important for VZ than lagging indicators, such as accident frequencies.

Introduction: The Global Challenges Concerning Safety and Health in Workplaces

The focus in this chapter is on how Vision Zero (VZ) is applied in organizations and workplaces. From a global perspective, safety and health in workplaces still needs a lot of improvement, and recent threats to the way we work in times of economic and social crises (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic) reinforce this need. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO 2019), more than 2.3 million people die globally from work-related accidents and diseases every year, and it is estimated that road traffic incidents account for approximately one-third of all work-related fatalities (EC 2020).

Roughly speaking, around 7,500 people die every day due to unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. Around 6,500 of them die from work-related diseases, and approximately 1,000 from fatal accidents (see Fig. 1), whereas the numbers for nonfatal accidents and diseases are much higher.

Fig. 1

Deaths per day due to unsafe and unhealthy working conditions (globally) (ILO 2019)

There are great differences in the frequencies of work-related accidents and diseases per region, country, and sector. Figure 2 shows the accident fatality rates per 100,000 persons in the labor force of various continental regions. In Europe, fatal accident frequencies are considerably lower than in, e.g., Asia and Africa, yet meaningful improvements are still needed and possible in Europe.

Fig. 2

Accident fatality rates per 100,000 persons in the labor force, 2014 (ILO 2019)

The high numbers of work-related accidents and diseases do not only mean a high human toll, but also considerable economic losses. According to the ILO, the global economic loss has been estimated at 4% of the Global Gross Domestic Product. This is because millions of productive workdays are lost, there is material damage, and production processes are interrupted. At the same time, there are huge associated costs for health care and worker’s compensation. It is therefore not surprising that Decent Work and Economic Growth is one of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG no. 8) for 2030 (UN 2015). SDG no. 3 – Good Health and Well-being – is also relevant to workplaces and road safety (e.g., SDG no. 3.6), as are SDG no. 9 – Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG no. 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

The symbols of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals no. 3, 8, 9, and 12, as relevant for Vision Zero in workplaces and road safety

Vision Zero in Workplaces: Roots and Developments

Focus on safety in workplaces has a long tradition and is important in all parts of the world. Present practices with VZ in workplaces build, at least partly, on a range of historic experiences with accident prevention. In the remainder of this chapter, we follow the development of VZ in workplaces chronologically, paying attention at first to its main roots, and with examples of its relevance for road traffic safety.

The Origin of Accident Prevention (Early 1800s)

According to Eichendorf (2011), the roots of VZ for safety at work stem from E.I. DuPont who established a gunpowder mill near Wilmington (Delaware, USA) in 1802. Several severe accidents occurred, and on one occasion three wagonloads of gunpowder blew up, causing many fatalities and destroying many buildings in Wilmington. He realized that the disaster was not only a matter of bad luck. E.I. DuPont was one of the first to formulate safety rules, which he did back in 1811. He also realized that the lack of interest in safety of the managers contributed to the likelihood of accidents and disasters. He thus transferred responsibility to his managers, who were required to live on the site premises together with their families. In this way, he created a strong incentive for prevention. At that time, the understanding of safety and accident prevention was very limited, so DuPont’s successes with accident prevention were limited. In the DuPont premises at Wilmington, 288 explosions took place during the period 1802–1921, causing the death of 228 people – including several members of the Dupont family (Hagley Museum 2020). However, E.I. DuPont’s interest in safety formed the basis for the DuPont Company becoming a world leader in safety throughout the twentieth century.

Zero Defects (Since 1966)

In the 1960s, frontrunners in quality management were the defense and aerospace industries. In these industries, cooperation between various suppliers and industries in NATO countries implied a need to ensure that components, made in one country, matched perfectly with components from other countries and industries. To guarantee that products were “fit for purpose,” quality management initially focused very strongly on “products meeting their specification” and inspection after production. Quality management gurus such as Edward Deming and Joseph Juran had clarified that in order to deliver quality products, organizations had to plan and control their production processes adequately, and they emphasized that quality had to be a top management priority.

The Total Quality philosophy enlarged the focus, from “products meeting their specification” and “being fit for purpose,” to all aspects of production. In Total Quality Management (TQM, in Japan known as Total Quality Control, TQC), the general idea was that for delivering excellent quality, it was not sufficient to just control the production process, but that quality management also should comprise the quality of the organization and the quality of its personnel.

James Halpin was director of quality at Martin Company (now part of Lockheed-Martin), and responsible for the quality and performance of Martin’s defense products, including missile systems, weapon systems, and communication systems. He was the first to develop a Zero Defects program. Under his guidance, hundreds of groups, also in related industries, developed, implemented, recognized, and sustained Zero Defects programs. In 1966, he published about the Zero Defects approach, to make it more widely available (Halpin 1966). In it, Halpin addressed the “double standard” workers may have: “If our ‘everyworker’ demands perfection from his mechanic, doctor, dentist, lawyer and all the rest, why doesn’t he demand the same of himself in his own job?” (Halpin, p. 4). Zero Defects requires getting rid of this double standard: “The Zero Defects concept promotes a constant, conscious desire to do a job (any job) right the first time” (p. 5). Doing things right the first time eliminates the necessity of rework, reinspection, and retest and, in this way, saves a lot of costs.

Halpin saw the relationship between management and the individual employees as the key to achieving industrial excellence and described the Zero Defects program as “…a management technique beamed at getting the employee to think – getting him to think positively about each and every task” (p. 8). This could only be achieved by recognizing the importance of the dignity of the individual worker. Halpin also stated it was “…absolutely necessary that the unions be asked to join the ZD team” (p. 33). Though Halpin’s program for Zero Defects was later criticized by other TQM experts for focusing too much on “creating a Total Quality Culture” and for “not paying sufficient attention to process controls,” the impact of the Zero Defects movement was great. The landing of the first man on the moon (1969) showed that with involvement of many stakeholders and a quest for prevention, it was possible to achieve unprecedented successes .

Zero Accidents (Since 1970)

When Zero Defects programs began to spread in industries, the path was paved for translating it to zero accident programs. Zero accident programs and campaigns were started in a number of countries and industries in the early 1970s. An example was the “Zero in Safety” or “Focus on Safety” campaign by the National Safety Council in the USA (US Department of Labor 1970). These early zero accident programs focused on promoting the state of the art in accident prevention; however, most of these campaigns lasted for only a few years.

Japan’s Zero Accident: Total Participation Campaign (Since 1973)

The zero accidents campaign of the Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association (JISHA), which was launched in 1973 with support of the (former) Ministry of Labor, demonstrated to be sustainable and is still running today. The campaign elaborated explicitly on activities, for quality control (QC), and also referred to the US National Safety Council campaign.

Similar to Halpin’s Zero Defects program, the Japanese Zero Accident campaign focuses strongly on participation of the workers, with the basic philosophy of respecting human life. They put a strong emphasis on Hazard Prediction training of workers (in Japanese KTY), and the technique of “pointing and calling.” Pointing and calling is a method whereby the workers collectively check the safety of the workplace and each other (e.g., use of personal protective equipment) before work is started. They point to (potential) hazards, and if it is OK, this is called out loudly by the workers. If is not OK, then measures are taken to rectify them. The method emphasizes that safety is a collective responsibility, and by using different senses (vision, sensing, hearing, and smelling), it is expected to have maximum impact on the workers’ awareness. In addition to this, meetings are held to discuss near-miss incidents.

The Japanese campaign is built around three basic principles (JISHA 2020): (1) a zero accident principle: achieving accident-free workplaces (including industrial accidents, occupational illness, and commuting accidents) by detecting, understanding, and solving all hazards (problems) in everybody’s daily life, as well as potential hazards existing in workplaces and work; (2) the principle of preemptive action, i.e., to prevent all accidents and industrial accidents by detecting, understanding, and solving all hazards (problems) in everybody’s daily life, as well as potential hazards existing in workplaces and work in order to create a brighter and more vigorous workplace with zero accidents and zero diseases as an ultimate goal; (3) participation, meaning managers, supervisors, staff, and workers making a concerted effort to detect, understand, and solve potential hazards (problems) existing in workplaces and work. It requires the voluntary effort and commitment of all those involved in actions for problem-solving, and a positive attitude and engagement of top management, safety management, leadership by managers and supervisors, and the voluntary participation of every worker.

From Safety Culture to Prevention Culture (Since 1986)

One of the first references to the term occupational “safety culture” was made in the 1980s after disasters with: (1) the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 (INSAG 1986), (2) the space shuttle Challenger in 1986 (and Columbia in 2003 – CAIB 2003), and (3) the Piper Alpha oil production platform in 1988 (Cullen 1990). In the analyses, intangible factors such as information difficulties, violations, failure to recognize emerging danger, role ambiguity, management complacency, poor communication, and low prioritization of safety were mentioned (Cox and Flin 1998).

There is no generally accepted definition of safety culture, and there is no universally accepted method of assessment. Many definitions of safety culture can be found in the literature, with at least four issues underlying the variety of definitions (Table 1).

Table 1 Main issues in defining “safety culture” (Zwetsloot et al. 2020)

Each of the four “issues of debate” seems relevant for a more broad “prevention culture,” encompassing the prevention of injuries, illness, and disease, at the organizational level, wherein there is sufficient trust between management and workers, and wherein open communication is very important for the development of a prevention culture. The concept of a prevention culture does not have to be normative by definition. However, prevention cultures can be well developed or less well developed, and for distinguishing between them a normative framework (e.g., Fig. 4) is always needed. While the direct impact of a prevention culture on safety and health stems from practices and behavior that can be directly observed, these factors are certainly partly determined by “deeper layers,” such as underlying values, attitudes, and implicit assumptions. Finally, while a safety and health management system represents the formal rules, the culture represents the informal rules. Formal and informal rules can strengthen each other, or conflict with each other. In the latter case, the culture tends to undermine formal safety management, while in the former culture and systems strengthen each other.

Fig. 4

The health, safety, and environment (HSE) culture ladder. (Source: Hudson 2007)

Prevention culture also has a business ethics dimension associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR). Avoiding “shifting consequences” (to others, to society, and to future generations), including the prevention of accidents and harm, is the key principle (Zwetsloot et al. 2013).

One popular and practical way of portraying safety culture in workplaces and organizations involves five levels of maturity or development in regard to companies’ approach to health, safety, and the environment (Parker et al. 2006). This is often portrayed as progressive steps of safety maturity, with gradually increasing trust and accountability, from a pathological to a generative culture (Fig. 4; Hudson 2007).

VZ in workplaces is a process, and most reflective of the proactive and generative strategy steps of the ladder (Fig. 4), and it is this that many VZ companies around the world attain to follow .

National Vision Zero Networks (Since 2003)

The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health and a group of Finnish companies started a Zero Accident Forum in 2003 with Professor Jorma Saari, who had picked up the zero “accidents” concept in Canada and the USA. The Finnish forum initially had 21 member companies in 2003 and, in 2021, counts more than 400 member organizations, representing various sizes and sectors. In 2019, the forum redefined itself as the Finnish Vision Zero Forum to reflect a broader application of the VZ concept to safety, health, and well-being. The management and staff of its member organization are committed to improving occupational safety and sharing good practices, in order to learn from each other, across industries and sectors, according to the following principles (Zwetsloot et al. 2017c):

• We commit ourselves to sharing information on best practices with other workplaces.

• We will improve our workplace safety in cooperation with our employees and management.

• Health and safety are an integral part of our workplace’s successful business operations.

• We commit ourselves to annually providing the Vision Zero Forum’s project team with information on occupational safety.

Similar VZ accident networks were started in the Netherlands in 2011, and in Germany in 2013.

Social Accident Insurance Policies (Since 2008)

In Germany, the national social accident insurance (DGUV ) adopted the principles of VZ in 2008. They explicitly explicitly referred to these VZ principles as the basis for their strategy for accident prevention (at work, in schools, and on the road), as well as the prevention of occupational diseases and work-related illnesses (DGUV 2008). DGUV sees VZ as very closely related to the goal to achieve a comprehensive culture of prevention. According to Eichendorf (2011), there are four basic principles underlying VZ:

• Life is not negotiable.

• People make mistakes.

• Tolerance limits are the physical load limits of humans.

• People have a basic right to a safe working environment.

The DGUV regards VZ as a strategic and comprehensive approach. They also underline the ethical aspects of VZ, which implies that safety and health at work be regarded as human and societal values that provide direction to organizational and national preventive efforts. The DGUV also organized three international occupational safety and health strategy conferences, whereby the second strategy conference (2011) focused on a Preventive Occupational Safety and Health Culture (2nd Strategy Conference 2011). In the conference, five pillars were regarded as essential for attaining such a culture of prevention:

• 1. Vision Zero: Reducing work accidents and occupational diseases

• 2. Raising awareness, developing competencies and capacity building

• 3. Cooperation between public health and occupational safety and health

• 4. Health and safety as an integral part of lifestyle

• 5. Integrating prevention into the social security system

VZ as pillar no. 1 was regarded as the basis for the other pillars, which prepares the foundation (the strategy) and forms the roof (the objective) for a culture of prevention. The pillar considered to be most relevant for a culture of prevention by the conference participants was pillar no. 2 – raising awareness.

National and International Policies for Vision Zero in Workplaces (Since 2008)

The relevance of VZ for national and international occupational safety and health policies is increasingly acknowledged, explicitly or implicitly, by an increasing number of governments and institutions. A key event for VZ and the development of a prevention culture was the signing of the Seoul Declaration on 29th June 2008, by 46 global occupational safety and health leaders, including 33 representatives of national governments at the occasion of the XVIII World Congress on Safety and Health at Work in Seoul (South Korea) (ILO, 2008). It elaborated on the ILO Convention No. 187 on the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health, wherein the concept of a culture for prevention was first introduced (ILO, 2006). It was a collaborative effort involving the ILO, the International Social Security Association (ISSA), and the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA), as well as representatives of national governments, social security providers, and professional organizations and associations representing employers and employees. They jointly expressed their will to create a worldwide culture of prevention. It broadened the term prevention culture beyond the workplace, by stating that “worker” health was the responsibility of society as a whole. By 2013, 379 institutions had signed the Seoul Declaration, demonstrating a shared will to establish a world-wide culture of prevention with human beings as it hearts (Eichendorf and Bollmann 2013). The Seoul declaration states that a prevention culture implies the right to a safe and healthy (working) environment, which is respected at all national levels. The signatories of the Seoul Declaration committed to actively participate in securing a safe and healthy working environment through a system of defined rights, responsibilities, and duties, whereby prevention was to be accorded the highest priority.

A “Prevention Culture” was defined as a culture in which society as a whole promotes high levels of safety and health at work. “A national preventative safety and health culture is one in which the right to a safe and healthy working environment is respected at all levels, where governments, employers and workers actively participate in securing a safe and healthy working environment through a system of defined rights, responsibilities and duties, and where the principle of prevention is accorded the highest priority.”

With the Seoul Declaration, the focus in prevention was widened from work safety to a broader health and safety prevention approach:

The steady increase in mental health issues and musculoskeletal diseases is an example, indicating that the borders between workers’ health and public health are dissolving and the links between work life and private life become more fluid. (Treichel 2013, p. 55)

In 2011, the Istanbul Declaration elaborated and built on the commitments of the Seoul Declaration and was signed by 33 countries (30 Ministers of Labor) (ILO, 2011). It recognized a healthy and safe working environment as a fundamental human right, as well as a societal responsibility. It was recognized that building and promoting a sustainable national preventive culture should be ensured through a system of defined rights, responsibilities, and duties. The countries that signed the declaration committed themselves to building sustainable national preventive cultures, and to taking the lead in promoting a preventive culture worldwide.

To foster a prevention culture, both prevention and promotion measures are need that align with values, norms, actions, policies, customs, and beliefs. To help achieve such alignment, six seem essential (Schulze et al. 2013):

• 1. Reduce the tendency to compartmentalize work from the rest of life.

• 2. Understand the value of good jobs to a culture of prevention.

• 3. Integrate into educational systems a focus on career and job readiness that promotes skills for risk prevention.

• 4. Advance evolved notions of work, health, and prevention.

• 5. Advance a preventive approach to chronic (physical and mental) disease.

• 6. Identify the means to make both prevention and promotion integral parts of a culture of prevention and well-being.

The main drivers of societal change are the recognition of safety and health as important human and social values. Recognizing these values implies intrinsic motivation for promotion and prevention in the area of safety and health at work. Yes, there are rules and regulations:

But people live prevention because they believe in it, they are intrinsically motivated for it, they are convinced of the benefits, they have positive associations with prevention and finally, because they have successfully applied prevention principles at work and in their free time as part of their lifestyle. (Treichel 2013, p. 57)

The benefits of a prevention culture are: fewer health and safety problems and associated costs, and more productive employees; fewer quality and delivery problems, higher reliability, flexibility, and productivity in production and work processes; a better status in society and attractiveness in the labor market, greater profitability, and several social and economic benefits for society at large (Zwetsloot 2014).

In the USA, the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) defined a “Total Worker Health” trademarked strategy in 2011. Total Worker Health is defined as policies, programs, and practices that integrate protection from work-related safety and health hazards with promotion of injury and illness prevention efforts to advance worker well-being. It focuses on four fundamental areas: safety first, well-being, leadership, and empowerment (NIOSH 2016). Another example is the Swedish government who explicitly referred to VZ in 2016 in their occupational safety and health strategy, which was focused on VZ for fatal accidents and other work-related injuries, sustainable working life, and a sound psychosocial work environment (Kristianssen et al. 2018).

Innovating to Zero (Since 2012)

A well-known business analyst and strategist, Sarwant Singh (2012), identified “innovating to zero” as one of the (ten) megatrends that was likely to greatly influence business, work, and life in the years to come. According to Singh, “innovating to zero” is a special kind of mega trend, as:

It is more a concept than a real happening. It implies the desire for perfection in our society: a ‘zero concept’ world with a vision of zero carbon emissions, zero crime rates, zero accidents, carbon-neutral cities. (Singh 2012, p. 46)

Although this seemingly perfect world sounds almost impossible, the point is that governments and companies today are moving towards this ‘picture perfect’ vision of eliminating errors, defects and other negative externalities, and along that very journey creating for themselves huge challenges and opportunities. (Ibid., p. 46)

Singh regards innovating to zero as a way of running and innovating one’s business.

It is not a trend that is incorporated by individuals or companies overnight. It is a gradual process, a journey that will create opportunities, demand investments, and yield long-term returns. The most remarkable feature of this Mega vision is that the ultimate opportunity lies not in attaining the actual goal itself, but in capitalising on the opportunities that would lead to it. Success in innovating to zero requires an innovation agenda that bravely talks of breakthroughs in the face of radical goals – goals that intend to create a better world, a zero concept world, which is free of unhelpful externalities and defects. It also needs a strong culture from people within that ecosystem. (Ibid., p. 59)

It is important to realize that VZ in workplaces and VZ for road safety, etc., are not unique concepts, but are all part of “a family of Vision Zeros” (Zwetsloot et al. 2013). Many leading companies have committed themselves to several applications of VZ (quality, sustainability, safety, etc.). Initially, each of these visions was criticized for being unrealistic, or too expensive, yet in actual practice they triggered inspiring innovations and contributed to good business cases .

The Global Vision Zero Fund (Since 2015)

It was thanks to the good relationship of the DGUV with the German government that in June 2015, when the World Leaders of the G7 came together in the South of Germany, VZ was discussed at the global top level. VZ was agreed to be the leading concept for improving safety and health (G7 2015a). On that occasion, a “Vision Zero Fund ” was established to promote prevention around the world, with the goal of seeing as few serious work-related accidents as possible, or none at all (ILO 2015a). The fund is implemented through the ILO (ILO 2015b), with the aim of supporting low-income-producing countries in improving occupational safety and health (G7 2015b).

Implementation of Vision Zero in 27 European Workplaces (2017)

The Partnership for European Research in Occupational Safety and Health (PEROSH) is a partnership of 14 occupational safety and health institutes in 13 European countries. The PEROSH “Working Group on Safety Culture and Accident Prevention” generated a discussion paper entitled “The Case for Research into the Zero Accident Vision,” which was published in the journal Safety Science (Zwetsloot et al. 2013). In the paper, it was emphasized that many companies with a good safety reputation had adopted a zero accident vision (ZAV), while very little scientific research on VZ had been carried out. It referred to the success of the Finnish “Zero Accident Forum,” which had supported its member companies in realizing significant safety improvements over time. In the paper, a call was made to the safety research community to undertake empirical research to better understand and support safety strategies based on ZAV.

The next step for the PEROSH-working group was to initiate a multinational (seven countries) study involving 27 European-based companies that had adopted a ZAV. The research focused on their implementation of ZAV, and particularly on the roles of ZAV commitment, safety communication, safety culture, and safety learning (Zwetsloot et al. 2017b). It was a mixed method study involving a survey among managers and workers, as well as workshops at company and country level. A common characteristic of all the companies was the high commitment of their managers and workers to their ZAV, which often were embedded in the companies’ business strategies. This commitment was regarded by the researchers as the main driver for long-term safety improvements. Safety communication, safety culture, and safety learning (from incidents and good-practices) were also found to be relevant factors in ZAV implementation. It was concluded that ZAV is the basis for inspiring and innovative approaches to improve safety, as an integrated part of doing business.

The PEROSH research project also formed the inspiration for a second discussion paper, focusing on the innovative strategies of the companies committed to ZAV (Zwetsloot et al. 2017c). The researchers found that merely promoting traditional safety management or accident prevention will not necessarily lead to significant new improvements in safety. Six innovative perspectives associated with VZ were identified and presented:

• 1. A commitment strategy

• 2. Aiming for a culture of prevention

• 3. Mainstreaming VZ into the business processes

• 4. VZ as trigger for innovations in safety, health, and well-being

• 5. The combination of a strong ethical and rational basis

• 6. Networking and cocreation

Finally, the PEROSH research project also formed the basis for a third paper focusing on the broadening of VZ from accident prevention to the promotion of safety, health, and well-being (SHW) at work (Zwetsloot et al. 2017a). In the paper, the consequences of a genuine commitment to VZ for addressing SHW and their synergies are discussed, with special attention paid to the synergy between safety and well-being at work. One of the conclusions was that even with a strong focus on preventing accidents, health and well-being should also be addressed. The relevance of the above six innovative perspectives for SHW was further clarified (Table 2).

Table 2 Vision Zero (VZ) for safety, health, and well-being – six innovative perspectives. (Elaborated on Zwetsloot et al. 2017a)

The ISSA’s Global Strategy for Vision Zero (Since 2017)

The International Social Security Association (ISSA) launched a VZ strategy for workplaces in 2017 based on the assumption that all (serious) accidents, harm, and work-related ill-health are preventable (ISSA 2017). VZ in this context is the ambition and commitment to create and ensure safe and healthy work while preventing all (serious) accidents, harm, and work-related diseases. This requires a process of continual improvement, aiming at excellence in safety, health, and well-being (SHW). The ISSA global strategy is associated with a global VZ campaign, which (in 2021) is running in more than 80 countries, and where more than 11,000 organizations have associated themselves with the campaign and strategy.

VZ is not a target; it is a “Vision” and a process, a journey toward the ideal. VZ is something you do, not something you have. It is associated with ethical values, and it implies that work should help workers to maintain and improve their SHW, and develop their self-confidence, competences, and employability. Genuine commitment to VZ can initiate and sustain the process and social support necessary for the VZ process. Organizations, both large and small, can commit themselves to VZ independent of their performance in SHW.

A Vision is associated with a mindset, a mental image of what the future will or could be like. It requires attention to SHW in the design stage, in planning, procedures, and practices. The three aspects – “Safety, Health and Wellbeing” – are interacting and can strengthen each other – thus implying opportunities for synergy. As a result, the consequence of commitment to zero accidents is to create these synergies by simultaneously dealing seriously with health and well-being (Zwetsloot et al. 2017a). By focusing on not just safety, but also health and well-being, the VZ strategy builds on emerging initiatives in policies and practice to prevent, e.g., workplace stress, terror, violence, bullying, and harassment, as well as ergonomic issues such as heavy lifting and repetitive strain in the workplace.

The ISSA has developed a guide for organizations that want to implement or further develop VZ. The guide has been developed in close interaction with many organizations and practitioners and is structured around seven “Golden Rules” for VZ for SHW at work (ISSA 2017):

• 1. Take leadership – demonstrate commitment

• 2. Identify hazards – control risks

• 3. Define targets – develop programs

• 4. Ensure a safe and healthy system – be well organized

• 5. Ensure safety and health in machines, equipment, and workplaces

• 6. Improve qualifications – develop competence

• 7. Invest in people – motivate by participation

The guide for the 7 Golden Rules, which addresses employers and managers, can be downloaded from the ISSA website visionzero.global and is available in many languages, and there are also several sector-specific versions available. In addition, a “Seven Golden Rules ISSA” app can be downloaded (currently in English and Spanish), and it is also available via the website: www.sevengoldenrules.com .

Examples of the Implementation of Vision Zero in Workplaces

Although there are many organizations that have adopted VZ (Zero accidents, Zero harm, etc.), there are not yet many well-described case studies performed on the implementation of VZ. The two examples below illustrate some variety and potential.

Case 1 Implementation at the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter

Young (2014) described and analysed 25 years of experiences and interventions at the New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited (NZAS), which was named the safest aluminium smelter of its class in the world in 2007. A Zero Accident Vision was introduced in the company in 1990, using the slogan “Our Goal is Zero.” Young evaluated the activities and success factors of their sustained effort, one of which was the importance of recognizing innovations as opportunities for safety improvement. The most important success factors over the years were: (1) automation (thereby eliminating hazardous work); (2) transformational leadership (which enabled the application of resources toward goal-oriented interventions); (3) an ergonomic strategy focussing on the hierarchy of controls; and (4) a focus on environmental conditions, instead of trying to influence individual behaviour directly. There was an emphasis on eliminating hazards or risk scenarios and improving ergonomic system design, and as such, individual behaviour was generally regarded as less important.

Case 2 Implementation in a Large Steel and a Large Construction Company in the Netherlands

Twaalfhoven and Kortleven (2016) carried out empirical research in the largest steel company and the largest construction company in the Netherlands, both of whom were committed to zero accidents. In both companies, the attitude and behaviour of employees were seen as important for achieving zero accidents. In their research, Twaalfhoven and Kortleven focused on how the companies managed human errors and the use of sanctions. Both companies had a three-step approach for dealing with unsafe behaviour: Step 1, the behaviour of an employee is addressed by the supervising manager; he/she explains what behaviour is expected from the employee and why. When the undesirable behaviour persists, step 2 follows. The manager has to ensure that the employee fully understands what is expected and why and an official warning is given. If necessary, step 3 implies an intervention to ensure that the undesirable behaviour stops. The intervention may include additional training or allocating the employee to a different task. In the two organizations, employees were seen as individuals who intrinsically wanted to work safely. External factors were regarded as the prime causal factors of unsafe behaviour, which were regarded as the responsibility of management. They also found that sanctions were used more frequently toward employees from external contractors than toward their own personnel.

The ISSA’s Proactive Leading Indicators for Vision Zero (Since 2020)

Many companies and organizations have been inspired by the ISSA VZ strategy, yet one of the challenges and traps that organizations fall into when implementing and evaluating the effects of VZ strategies is, as mentioned above, their sole reliance on measuring “reactive” (after incidents have occurred) and “lagging” indicators, such as accidents, fatalities, injuries, harm, sickness absence, and disease. So the question is: What else can they measure which will help them steer in the right direction, which can pinpoint areas for preventive and promotion action, and which can be used as “proactive” and “leading” indicators?

To support the ISSA VZ strategy and the seven Golden Rules, a set of 14 proactive leading indicators were developed in 2020 through an interactive and collaborative process involving researchers, organizations, and companies. There are two proactive leading indicators for each of the 7 Golden Rules as outlined in Table 3. There is also an ISSA Guide available for the use of the indicators, as well as a fact sheet for each of the indicators. The fact sheets comprise aims, key concepts, good practice, limitations, and options for measuring the indicator.

Table 3 Overview of the 14 proactive leading indicators for safety, health, and well-being at work (SHW) (ISSA 2020)

The guide provides three options for using the proactive leading indicators:

• Option 1: A Yes/No Checklist, focusing on the key activities for good processes in each facet of safety, health, and well-being.

• Option 2: A Frequency Estimation addresses the frequency with which key activities for good SHW processes are carried out in a systematic and consistent manner. The degree of systematic action and consistency can be estimated using, e.g., five broad semiquantitative categories: Always or almost always – Frequently – Occasionally – Rarely – Very rarely or never.

• Option 3: A Quantitative Measurement, wherein the key activities are quantitatively measured with either frequencies or percentages. The outcomes thereof can be used for benchmarking.

Vision Zero in Workplaces and Road Traffic

Workplace and road traffic safety are more closely related than is often realized. Roads are the workplace for: Truck, bus, and taxi drivers; emergency, health care, and law enforcement personnel; salespeople, mail, food, and package delivery; and road construction and service workers. Their health and well-being are central to strategies to ensure excellence in workplace and road traffic safety. In addition, for many people commuting to and from work is a daily routine, which is also relevant for both road and workplace safety. For a wide variety of professions and many people, workplace safety and road safety go hand in hand. Many jobs, professions, and workplaces are influenced by the VZ policy implementation in road traffic, from the construction and service of the roads, to commuting and transport of goods and people. It is estimated that up to one-third of all work-related fatalities occur in work-related motor vehicle crashes (EC 2020). VZ in workplaces is therefore relevant to all organizations that deal with traffic safety, most prominent with organizations involved in the construction and maintenance of road or rail infrastructure.

Workplace Vision Zero and Road Traffic Policies

Two of the fields where work-related fatalities and injuries occur most frequently are in the construction and use of roads. A recent study of roadway work zone fatalities in the USA revealed that 76% of fatalities involved “transportation events” (CDC 2020), such as when construction workers are struck by vehicles entering work zones. Likewise, employees travelling the roads as part of their work or commuting also suffer fatalities, including crashing into roadway work zones. Designing, planning, training, and building safe work zones for construction workers are therefore crucial aspects of VZ strategies in this sector, focusing on proper work-zone layout, signage, high-visibility apparel, concrete barriers, speed-reducing measures, etc.

Companies have developed road traffic policies for their employees regarding their use of vehicles and the roads, which deal with a number of safety, health, and well-being issues that can be applied to a VZ strategy, including:

• Type of vehicle or mode of transport – truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle, scooter, etc.

• Vehicle exterior and interior design and configuration – mirrors and cameras, suspension seating (ergonomics), noise reduction, etc.

• Placement and securing of cargo – people, machines, tools, goods, etc.

• Planning tools – GPS-routing, global tracking of goods, etc.

• Behavior in traffic – speed limits, use of mobile phones, seat belts, helmets, alcohol, drugs, rest breaks, working hours, etc.

• Technical assistive devices – tail lift, forklift and crane for heavy lifting, etc.

• First-aid and fire training

• Vehicle inspection – check before each trip, etc.

• Vehicle maintenance – consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations

• Incident reporting and investigation

• Travel management – weather, use of public transport, etc.

• Routine and nonroutine trips – knowledge of routes and locations, etc .

Case: Shell’s Lifesaving Rules

More than 350 employees and contractors of Shell International were fatally injured worldwide in work-related incidents between 2000 and 2008. The company regarded the frequency of fatalities and serious accidents of people working for them (employees and contractors) as far too high. Shell analyzed the fatalities and serious accidents in their company (including accidents involving non-Shell employees working for them), and in response defined, introduced, and implemented 12 so-called Lifesaving Rules (Peuscher and Groeneweg 2012), which were in line with their safety strategy to pursue “Goal zero.” The Lifesaving Rules were not new rules but were selected as they target activities where failure to comply with the rules had a high potential for serious injury or death. The Lifesaving Rules have since 2008 been mandatory for everyone while on business or on Shell sites. Consciously breaking safety rules was already never acceptable, and in the case of Lifesaving Rules, the Shell philosophy is that it is totally unacceptable: Failure to comply with any Lifesaving Rule, or encouraging or tolerating rule-breaking, results in disciplinary action. Breaches in these situations mean that Shell applies the principle that: “If you choose to break these rules, you choose not to work for Shell.” All reported breaches are investigated thoroughly, fairly and on an individual basis in line with the established local policy and practice. Complying to the Lifesaving Rules is not only an individual responsibility, but it is also the responsibility of everyone to intervene in case someone else is breaking one of these rules. Four of the twelve Lifesaving Rules are explicitly aimed (fully or partly) at decreasing serious road accidents, e.g., involving trucks with Shell products (Table 4).

Table 4 Shell’s Lifesaving rules that are also relevant for road safety

In the period 2008–2011, Shell’s fatal incident rate dropped by 71%, while in other oil and gas companies the average decrease was 39%. In the same period, the Lost Time Injury rate at Shell dropped by 40%, while the average decrease in the sector was 21% (Peuscher & Groeneweg, 2012).

Pitfalls in the Implementation of Vision Zero in Workplaces

The research on the implementation of VZ in workplaces has also identified a number of pitfalls in the implementation process, one of more of which can seriously hinder successful implementation of VZ. The pitfalls do not imply serious challenges for the implementation, when the organizations fully understand VZ. However, when VZ is only used as a slogan, without real commitment to the long-term process, and without realizing that it should be based on genuine commitment of leaders and workers, implementation may fail to be successful (Table 5).

Table 5 Pitfalls when considering Vision Zero in workplaces. (From Zwetsloot et al. 2017a)

Vision Zero Criticism and Response

VZ in workplaces is regularly criticized as being only based on simple slogans, leading to counterproductive results (Dekker et al. 2016; Dekker 2014; Long 2012). The main criticisms are that VZ: is unrealistic and naïve, denies the realities of risk, and is a fundamentalist ideology; in short, VZ is a dangerous idea (Long 2012), and VZ companies pursue safety through bureaucratic safety systems and bureaucratic accountability (Dekker 2014). According to the critics, VZ focuses on lagging indicators (such as injury rates) only, leading to underreporting of incidents, and is associated with trickery and fraud with numbers. The critics also state that ZAV drives a safety culture characterized by skepticism, and cynicism. VZ would also drive a punitive mindset, while positive goals and targets are said to be much more effective than avoidance goals such as zero accidents (Long 2012).

The VZ criticism is more often based on anecdotal evidence than on empirical research. It does confirm the pitfalls in implementation. Rather than being fundamental criticism, the criticism mostly highlights failures in implementation and proceeds to generalize such cases to criticize VZ in general. It is also striking that the critics all stem from the safety area, and do not pay any attention to other members of the family of VZ, e.g., zero defects, zero downtime, etc.

Conclusion: Key Messages

• 1. Globally, more than 7,500 people die each day due to unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.

• 2. Vision Zero in organizations is applied to several areas, e.g., zero defects, zero downtime, and zero emissions, as well as on workplace strategies targeting worker safety, health, and well-being, and the prevention of workplace accidents and work-related diseases.

• 3. Vision Zero in workplaces has a long history. Its roots go back to the beginning of the nineteenth century when E.I. Dupont formulated the first industrial safety policy. It also builds on the Zero Defects approach for Total Quality Management developed in the 1960s.

• 4. The concept of Vision Zero in workplaces is closely related to the concept of creating a prevention culture.

• 5. For many professions, the road is an important workplace. Vision Zero for road traffic and workplaces are overlapping and can strengthen each other. This is most relevant for employees who use roads as part of their work, for commuters, and for the workers who build and maintain the roads.

• 6. The implementation of Vision Zero in workplaces should be regarded as a commitment strategy, as it is based on genuine commitment of top leaders as well as the personnel. It is associated with five other innovative perspectives: Safety, health, and well-being as way of doing business, using opportunities for innovation, the development of a prevention culture, as an ethical basis linked to corporate social responsibility, and networking.

• 7. It is important that Vision Zero in workplaces is understood as a vision and a long-term ambition, not as a target.

• 8. Proactive leading indicators, such as those reflecting ongoing processes for ensuring safety, health, and well-being, are more important for Vision Zero in workplaces than lagging indicators, such as accident frequencies.

• 9. Vision Zero in workplaces is relevant on many levels, from workplaces and organizations, to national and international policies.

• 10. In 2021, more than 80 countries and 11,000 organizations are participating in the ISSA’s Vision Zero strategy and campaign.