Page 48 - Advances In Productive, Safe, and Responsible Coal Mining

34 Advances in Productive, Safe, and Responsible Coal Mining

undermines a company’s intent and culture, but can increase risk by unintentional mis-
application of risk management resources [6,7].
AnothercomplicationisthescopeofZeroHarmbeyondinjury.Doesitincludeoccu-
pational health, environmental impacts in and around a specific mine, impacts on the
broader environment (e.g., regional air quality, watershed impacts, etc.), community
harm, etc.? Again, there is no globally accepted governmental, nongovernmental, or
trade association criteria to mandate decision making on scope. The broader the scope,
the more challenging the achievement and accompanying positive and negative conse-
quencesarelikelytobe.Whiletherearesomegovernment-miningagenciesincountries
like Australia that uses the term in a pseudo-official capacity that may affect the
company-defined scope, this is an organization-specific decision. A growing influence
on this decision is international sustainability reporting standards and criteria, which
encourage some coal companies to treat multipleforms of risk as integral to Zero Harm;
e.g., environmental emissions and impacts, biodiversity, employee development, eco-
nomic opportunity for local communities, etc. [8].
Given the historical lack of parity between safety and occupational health in min-
ing, it is important to include occupational health in any use of Zero Harm [9]. In doing
so, organizations should recognize differences and similarities between occupational
injuries and illnesses in defining the harm portion of Zero Harm as outlined in
Table 3.1. Using clinical symptoms as a the measure of Zero Harm for occupational
illnesses introduces a bias into the process as the harm in occupational illness begins
when work exposures exceed the body’s ability to absorb and recover from those
exposures; i.e., harm is likely to occur before clinical symptoms are apparent.
A common question in this debate is: “Should Zero Harm be a vision or a specific
performance goal?” It depends on intention and what is judged to be possible. Some
mining companies select this audacious objective as a general aspiration or vision,
while others intend that it serve as a specific objective and try to manage accordingly.
Some see it as a means to help align employee decision making and behavior with
policy. One thing should be clear—Zero Harm should not be used without providing
an accompanying context for both internal and external stakeholders. This means
senior management should only take their organization down the Zero Harm path with
a full understanding of its meaning and the potential to achieve it given their current
approach to safety and health management, which must be communicated to all others
affected by these pronouncements. Using the phrase Zero Harm is not a prerequisite to
achieving safety excellence that approaches or reaches zero harm; however, optimi-
zation of risk management and employment of tools to understand and minimize
human error while enhancing organizational culture are essential [10].
If the leadership of every coal company were surveyed regarding their respective
Zero Harm philosophy and approach, results would likely reflect a large majority who
think it helpful to articulate Zero Harm, but who are uncertain about how to achieve it,
or have an unrealistic view of its success. It is intuitive to those who work in high-risk
industries, including mining, that absolute zero and Zero Harm are admirable and
appropriate from an ethical perspective, but unrealistic. Since this text is intended
to provide insight into achieving Zero Harm, the following guidelines highlight appro-
priate use of Zero Harm as either a vision or a goal: