Workplace incident investigations across Canada will likely involve more consideration for risks beyond health and safety, such as cyber threats, remote working and sustainability issues. According to a new white paper from Avetta, which digs into reducing workplace safety hazards, there are a few cultural biases across organizations that make it challenging to deliver positive safety outcomes. These biases are only going to add more pressure as risks evolve.
Over the past few years, workplace injury rates have increased across the globe and businesses will need to anticipate error and monitor work-related practices more readily. “When incidents, near misses, or gaps in controls are discovered, the investigation process should be embraced as a method to impact the numbers with identification of solutions to prevent future occurrences,” the white paper states.
According to the 2023 Report on Work Fatality and Injury Rates in Canada, by Sean Tucker and Anya Keefe of the University of Regina, Northwest Territories and Nunavut witnessed the highest five -year average injury fatality rate (9.8 deaths per 100,000). Among other provinces with more than 100,000 workers. Saskatchewan’s average five-year injury rate ranked highest (4.4 per 100,000) closely followed by Alberta (4.2 per 100,000).
The long-term effects of these incidents can be detrimental for companies. In the United States, the National Safety Council found the total cost of work injuries in 2022 was USD $167 billion. On a worldwide scale. work-related injuries and illness account for 3.94 per cent of the global GDP, amounting to $2.99 trillion. According to the Institute for Work and Health, “the average estimated financial return on these investments was about $2.20 for each $1.00 invested in prevention.”
Despite a shift to implement technology-driven health and safety management systems, companies are struggling to improve safety,” the report suggests. The researchers identified three cultural biases that challenge proper workplace investigations. They include, recency bias, assuming employee error versus safety gaps, and a false belief that finding a root cause will fix the problem.
Recency bias
Recency bias assumes the most recent task that occurred just before the incident is the cause of the incident, which spotlights employee error and assumes a linear flow of work that isn’t influenced by non-linear systems surrounding the employee. This ultimately drives under-reporting and negative cultural perceptions among employees. Companies miss out on learning from past incidents and improving the systems of work that keep workers safe and deliver better business.
An “us versus them” mentality
Assuming that an incident is caused by employee not following the rules often leads to disempowered workers and a lack of knowledge on how to best improve work systems. Organizations are advised to elevate their view on how important workers are regarding system gaps. As the report suggests, leaders should offer positive feedback to workers and genuinely listen to their feedback. Incident investigations often highlight that workplace safety is an employee’s responsibility. Yet every leader in an organization plays a role in safety and needs to understand how that supports worker feedback during an investigation leading to better outcomes.
Finding fault fixes the problem
Leaders are a powerful influence in any organization who can find the nuances of incident investigations. Yet many try to find a root cause of an issue, such as employee error or recency bias, which misses critical pieces of information and opportunities to improve. As the paper notes, “In a typical industrial setup, there is often tension between safety and productivity, but what we want is balance. In such circumstances, it becomes the perceived norm for one to focus on productivity at the cost of safety, with the perception that we fixed a problem that led to last week’s injury; therefore, it won’t happen again.”
Impact of incident investigations
To truly solve workplace problems, it is key to understand the many reasons why incidents occur and move to data-driven, fact-based incident investigations rather than piling fault onto one individual person or business area. The report underscores specific focus areas , primarily that “the power of investigations lie in conducting them before events occur to improve performance results.”
Safety managers should be aware that companies need research and data; not just third-party proprietary investigation approaches. The CSA Z1005 Incident Investigation standard can assist safety professionals to develop an effective yet specific incident investigation program.
To streamline the process of incident investigations, companies are urged to identify the right data that captures all the contributing factors across the value chain, along with factors that influence behaviour.
Standard simplifies incident investigations
CSA Z1005, the only incident investigation standard in the world, was created to help organizations plan for potential hazardous incidents, control incident sites, collect proof and prevent them from happening. Based on meeting the company’s unique needs, rather than any particular investigative method, the CSA Z1005:21, the latest version of the standard, helps anyone form better safety systems from scratch or improve upon flaws.
The report further delves into this standard and offers an illustrative roadmap from Ontario’s Infrastructure Health and Safety Organization, which companies can use to curate their own incident investigation forms. Organizations looking to mitigate preventable incidents through the standard will also find that hidden cost savings come from robust investigations.
More information on driving positive workplace safety outcomes can be accessed here.
