Page 47 - Advances In Productive, Safe, and Responsible Coal Mining

Zero Harm coal mining 33

new possibilities are being integrated into the expectations of a new generation of
coal-mining managers and leaders.
So, is Zero Harm the future of coal mining? Opinions vary and do not lack for con-
viction in their veracity. It is the author’s contention that it is realistic for the coal
industry to sustain safety excellence. However, this potential is unlikely based on
the current status quo. It requires changes in thinking, strategy, and approach to sus-
tainably advancing mine safety and health and it is important to understand the context
in which improvement must occur to maximize the degree of improvement. This
includes the history of the industry, mining methods and equipment, the application
of risk management principles and methods, defining acceptable operational risk, the
role of regulation, human error and behavior, and the opaque, but potent influence of
leadership and organizational culture. But any review of Zero Harm in coal mining
must begin with an understanding of the basic concepts of Zero Harm.

3.2 Zero Harm

The term “Zero Harm” is relatively new, first appearing about 15years ago in the
safety literature and used by a handful of progressive companies seeking to articulate
the achievement of a very high standard of safety and health performance [5]. In the
ensuing years, the term has motivated a remarkable volume of pronouncements, ges-
ticulation, discussion, and debate about both its meaning and potential. Today, it is
literally everywhere. There is no universally accepted definition of Zero Harm, but
there is broad consensus that it implies operating a business, such as a mine or mining
company, without any individual experiencing injury, or, causing no harm to anyone
at any time at work.
The word “zero” serves as the catalyst for the growing controversy about the ben-
efit of using the phrase in practice, whereas the word “harm” has been subjected to an
unlimited number of definitions and interpretations. Zero is zero, but what does harm
really mean? Many in the mining industry seeking to use it as a specific goal believe
harm to be the regulatory-codified definition of a reportable or recordable injury or
illness; i.e., an injury or illness that requires medical intervention. In most mining
countries, this implies any injury or illness more severe than simple first aid. Other
stakeholders suggest that even this interpretation is too lenient. They advocate from
the perspective of the industry’s moral obligation to absolutely protect people from
any harm resulting from work. And herein lies the dilemma: while it is admirable
to advocate for Zero Harm (of the strictest interpretation), it is a seemingly and sta-
tistically unproven ambition. There are clear safety performance improvement trends
across coal mining, but no significant mining organization has achieved and sustained
that level of performance. The result is a growing number of companies who publicly
pronounce Zero Harm as being everything from their brand, vision, goal, culture, and
core value to their most important priority. However, when companies fail to achieve
their own version of Zero Harm, it frequently leads to concerns of unrealistic expec-
tations, skepticism, demotivation, and even hypocrisy. There is also evidence that the
inability to achieve Zero Harm can result in under-reporting of injuries, which not only