Why “Old Safety” Remains Essential and a Precondition to “Safety 2.0”

Building Occupational Health and Safety on Solid Ground

The field of occupational health and safety is in the middle of a revolution of ideas. The rise of the “Safety 2.0” or “Safety Differently” literature has sparked conversations about the future of safety assumptions and practices. This new approach urges us to question established norms, explore new methods, and find better ways to ensure workers thrive – not merely survive – in the workplace.
The Safety 2.0 observations may be on point in some areas, but their solutions are remarkable in both ambition and short-sightedness.
A scan of the literature or attending presentations quickly highlights a few interesting ideas. Old-style investigations have failed to stop the same type of incidents – we need to stop conducting root cause analysis altogether and use “learning teams” instead. Are procedures complicating and slowing down employees’ work, resulting in errors and even incidents? Slash them or get rid of them entirely. Let the workers decide how to accomplish their tasks – after all, they are the experts at what they do. The general safety audit missed a problem that caused a serious incident? Obviously, general audits don’t work – audit only your “high-risk” operations.

The Bedrock of Safety: Why Standard Practices Matter

Yet, amid the enthusiasm for transformation, a crucial truth risks being overshadowed: the pursuit of improved health and safety outcomes through “Safety Differently” is inseparably dependent on the gains and ongoing benefits of “old safety” practices, often referred to as “Safety 1.0.”
Safety 1.0 has developed over the years from a concern to minimize loss due to incidents into a range of ever-evolving hazard management techniques and regulatory requirements. Safety programs include a range of elements: training, meetings, hazard assessments, investigations, signage, emergency response, work practices and procedures, audits, contractor management systems, etc. These have come to form the foundation of “safety” in the workplace, and that foundation and the structures it supports continues to protect our people. It’s not perfect, but it’s not anarchy either. And it’s certainly not a crisis requiring a total rethinking of everything. Before we clutch our pearls and bemoan that injury rates are “flat” or “not trending down enough”, it would help to expand our vision and compare today’s workplaces to those of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Or maybe spend some time in countries where having “Safety 1.0” still remains a “noble goal.”

To suggest that Safety 1.0 should be replaced by Safety 2.0, in whole or in part, is akin to arguing that the stability of a house can be improved by removing all or parts of its foundation. At it’s core the majority of the Safety 2.0 literature starts with the assumption that any “failures” of current safety practices are so systematic that only a full-scale renovation or rebuild is required.

It is similar to a homeowner who discovers his roof is leaking. Rather than replacing the roof, the homeowner concludes that the house itself is “broken”, is “fundamentally flawed, and needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt. Reasonableness aside, it begs the question of where the homeowner will live during this entire process.

Safety 2.0’s Aspirations – And Its Dependencies

The literature of Safety Differently and Safety 2.0 offers forward-thinking perspectives. These frameworks advocate empowering frontline workers, focusing on learning rather than blaming, and treating safety as an emergent property of complex systems rather than a static checklist. They challenge us to recognize the limitations of command-and-control approaches, and to foster adaptability, engagement, and psychological safety.
But here’s the key point: all these aspirations presume the existence of a functioning baseline – Safety 1.0. They presume workers have access to hazard management tools that actually work, that PPE is available and properly used, that emergency procedures are in place, and that regulatory minimums are already being met. Safety 2.0 is not a replacement for safety fundamentals; it is an evolution that grows from them, and is better as an addition to rather than a replacement of current efforts.

Misunderstanding Progress: The Risks of Forsaking the Fundamentals

There is a real danger in taking the Safety Differently movement as a call to abandon the “old ways,” even when some of their authors and gurus explicitly call for this. Failing to complete an OHS system audit means not achieving ISO certification, which means an organization can’t bid on contracts. Letting workers decide how work gets done opens organizations and their supervisors, managers, and executives to significantly liability – even prison time as in Canada. Not doing a root cause analysis after a major incident can violate regulatory requirements, conditions of contracts, and generate additional legal risks. Innovations often collapse under the weight of real-world pressures.
We shouldn’t be so quick to pull things apart. It’s not a good idea to tear down a fence unless you know why it was put there in the first place.
The most effective approach is to integrate. Maintain rigorous attention to the basics – risk assessments, controls, audits – while simultaneously fostering learning, improvement, and adaptability. In this blended approach, Safety 2.0 does not “replace” Safety 1.0 but builds upon it, much as advanced materials reinforce a well-engineered structure.

Why Foundations Matter

No architect would suggest removing the foundation to create a more functional or beautiful building. Instead, new designs and materials are layered onto a solid base, enhancing the building’s form and function. The best buildings are those that combine the reliability of strong foundations with the innovation and flexibility of modern design.
The same principle holds true in occupational health and safety. Safety 2.0’s transformational aspirations must be grounded in the unglamorous, persistent execution of standard safety practices. These fundamentals are not obstacles to progress—they are prerequisites.

What Occupational Health and Safety Practitioners Should Do

• Champion the Basics: Ensure that your organization’s foundation – procedures, controls, risk assessments, and compliance obligations – is strong, effective, and regularly maintained.
• Embrace Innovation Thoughtfully: Use Safety Differently concepts to enhance engagement, learning, and adaptability, but never at the expense of the basics.
• Integrate, Don’t Replace: Seek synergy between foundational practices and modern approaches. Safety has never been about “either/or” – it is “both/and.”
• Communicate Clearly: Help your teams, leaders, and stakeholders understand that innovation depends on strong foundations. The future is built on the solid ground of the present.

Building Safety, Not Illusions

The excitement around Safety 2.0 and Safety Differently is encouraging. We should challenge ourselves to grow, to learn, and to lead our field into the future. But we must never lose sight of the fact that our best innovations rest upon the tried-and-true practices that have actually saved more lives and prevented more injuries than we could ever hope to count.
To argue otherwise is to propose building castles in the air.