Posts
I already knew part of my answer and you likely do as well.I just took a quick look at the websites of some the largest oil and gas organizations in the world. These are organizations with high risk EHS profiles. And at times, they have the most to lose and gain when it comes to safety or EHS performance.
Based on revenue, the top 20 were reviewed in order to determine whether or not “safety” or some form of it was recognized as a core value or guiding principle. If I had to search for more than 10 minutes to make such a determination, I gave up. But here’s what I did find. Out of the top 20 firms, 10 clearly stated that safety was a core value or part of their guiding principles. With the remaining 10 organizations, safety was not stated as a core value, or their values or guiding principles were somewhat ambiguous, or not readily found.
What percentage of organizations outside of my top 20 list, in other sectors, clearly espouse safety as a value? I would think a much lesser rate than 50%.
Often we hear groups of individuals discuss “safety as a core value” and a “deeply integrated part of their organization” or their culture. How about “safety’s not just a priority but a value?” We can go on from here.
If we can agree on a starting point, let’s agree that if our organizations don’t think or feel strongly enough about safety to clearly state that it is a core value or guiding principle, then it’s likely not highly valued. I’m certain that many organizations would attempt to argue against my point in various ways. And I’m sure that many organizations have pretty good safety performance outside of the realm of this values discussion. But that’s not quite my point.
If safety is a value, why not take the time to state that it’s a value and act accordingly?
Hi David.
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned that the argument presented is reductionist, in that I think you are suggesting that even if a company was, or felt they were, committed to safety, if they don't say that safety is a core value then they aren't. As if stating it is the only thing that makes it real. As opposed to what they actually do? I also have concerns about the language itself, but that isn't around your point. Rather than saying that an organisation has a value of (insert appropriate platitude here), I think it is better to say that the organisation values (insert platitude here). So I think that rather than saying that "safety is a core value", and organisation could say "we value people". I think this language would drive much more relevant behaviour and decision making.