Making zero work for construction safety in a post-zero world

The use of zero within construction safety continues, despite a lack of supporting empirical evidence of success. Whether used as a target, a vision, or a journey, zero has its supporters and its critics, and remains popular among construction companies across the world.

A critical discussion sets out a number of theoretical considerations of zero, supplemented by statistical analysis of the U.S. SIF incident data for the period 2018-2022, evaluating companies that use zero and those that do not. This work mirrors that previously undertaken in the UK.

Cross referencing SIF incidents and firms using zero within their safety management revealed that overall, firms using zero had fewer incidents that firms that were not. However, when the data were examined statistically, no difference in the Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIF) outcomes between the zero and non-zero companies was determined. The data therefore are equivocal: it does not prove that zero does not work, but nor does it evidence that it does.

Zero remains problematic for occupational safety management. The empirical data from the United States do not evidence any clear success from the use of zero in practice, as was also the case in the equivalent UK dataset. Various debates remain around the use of zero, yet there are potential alternatives already emerging within safety management that may mean it naturally fades from the safety lexicon in the future.

This work adds to the theoretical debates around zero, providing food for thought for safety practitioners around the use of zero in the field. It also presents empirical correlational data that demonstrates a lack of evidence for the beneficial use of zero within occupational safety.