Safety I vs Safety II: Why It’s Not a Choice

Author: Matthew Elson, CEO at Evotix

Over the past few months, I’ve discussed a range of topics such as how safe operations are effective operations, the role of Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) in supporting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), why following the rules doesn’t guarantee safety and why ‘work as practiced’ is as important as ‘work as planned’ when it comes to designing safety for businesses.

More recently, I have waded in on the debate around Safety I and Safety II. It’s a lively discussion that has passionate advocates on both sides of the argument - but I don’t think it should be an either-or approach. Here’s why.

Safety I vs Safety II

In a nutshell, Safety I is about creating the safety case – the rules, procedures, processes and documentation designed to create a safe operating environment. If something goes wrong, the “Safety I” response is to investigate and, if appropriate, tighten down on the rules and procedures.

The “Safety II” critique is that that human behavior is not programmable as part of the safety case: people only follow rules and procedures to the extent that are convenient to them in fulfilling their roles. We should instead trust workers to apply practical judgement to the complex, interrelated environments found in modern workplaces.

If you follow the debate, you may conclude that these two schools of thought are in conflict with one another, forcing people to choose which side they’re on. However, as I explain in my article, “Safety-I and Safety-II: it’s not a choice,” I do not think it’s really a case of either/or. While each side has its champions, by focusing too much on the differences between the two, we miss the overarching point. There needs to be rules to mitigate the most serious hazards, supported by a safety culture that encourages workers to be aware, think for themselves and navigate everything else in a way that suits them. Simply put, organizations need to take the best of both worlds, drawing elements from both Safety I and Safety II, for a more holistic and impactful approach.

Best of both worlds: revamping your entire relationship with safety

This combined approach can redefine the wider organization’s entire relationship with safety. My second article, “Combining Safety l and Safety ll for effective operations,” looked at how taking the best of both contributed to effective operations, tying back to another theme that we’re passionate about at Evotix: that safe operations are effective operations. The focus of Safety I on the plan/do/check/act cycle aligns with good discipline in other operational activities. Meanwhile, the engagement and empowerment of employees in Safety II unlocks their potential to share and address other operational improvement opportunities. In this way, we are creating not only a safe but an effective operational environment.

Stronger together

My third article in the series, “Enriching EHS Careers with Safety I and II thinking,” explored how Safety I and II can enrich the professional lives of EHS practitioners. It’s something I previously covered (read here), but this time I wanted to examine how the core attributes associated with the two safety approaches make EHS a rewarding career.

These two concepts work well together because while Safety I requires structure, established processes and analytical thinking, Safety II needs communication, stakeholder engagement and empowered employees. These varied skills serve to highlight how multi-faceted an EHS career is.

If you’re interested in finding out more about Safety I and II, have a read of some of my other articles on this theme. You can find them by clicking on my LinkedIn page here.