Biases and prejudice in accident investigation

 To understand the effect of biases let’s review a real incident scenario for instance - There was once a close-knit group of employees in a busy, somewhat sized factory. Mark and Raj were two of them; they ran machines that were right next to each other in the plant. The factory's safety record was spotless, and employees were taught to put safety first at all times.

One day, tragedy occurred when a little mishap was brought about by a mechanical fault. Mark and Raj were the two closest people to the incident, which is awful. Mark was a seasoned employee who enjoyed the respect of both his peers and superiors. On the other hand, Raj had only been working at the plant for a short while.

The arrival of the safety team coincided with the start of the subsequent inquiry. Mark and Raj were interviewed and their accounts of the accident were recorded. This, however, was the point at which prejudice and bias first emerged. Unconsciously, several of the team members discounted Raj's account of the occurrence because of their preconceived views that new employees are more prone to making mistakes. Mark's story was discreetly favoured since they believed the evidence of an experienced worker would be more credible.

During their interviews, both personnel described the problem in full; nonetheless, the investigators' skewed perspective became clear. They seemed to place greater weight on Mark's claims, giving the impression that Raj's version was less reliable. The accident was ultimately attributed to Raj's carelessness, as determined by the inquiry.

This incident shows how prejudice and bias may have a major effect on accident investigations. Although the breakdown was beyond Raj's control, his lack of experience nonetheless hurt him in this instance. In order to guarantee that justice is done and that safety improvements are based on the most accurate facts, impartial, fair, and thorough accident studies are essential.

Prejudices and biases can significantly affect safety management in various ways, leading to less effective safety practices and potentially increasing the risk of accidents or incidents. Here are some ways these effects manifest:

1. Under-reporting of Incidents: Workers may fear discrimination or retaliation if they report safety concerns or incidents, especially if they belong to a minority or are perceived differently due to biases.

2. Inadequate Risk Assessment: Biases can lead to certain risks being underestimated or overlooked, particularly if they are associated with tasks or locations predominantly involving certain groups of workers.

3. Ineffective Safety Training: Training programs might not be designed to cater to the diverse needs of all employees if biases influence their development. This can result in some workers not fully understanding safety procedures or feeling alienated.

4. Poor Communication: Prejudices can hinder open communication between employees and management. Workers might feel their concerns are not taken seriously or that they cannot speak up, leading to unresolved safety issues.

5. Exclusion in Safety Planning: If safety planning and decision-making processes are dominated by a homogenous group, they may not adequately consider the perspectives and needs of all workers, leading to gaps in safety measures.

6. Discrimination in Safety Equipment: Biases might influence the provision and design of safety equipment, making it less effective for certain groups of workers. For example, personal protective equipment (PPE) that is not designed to fit different body types, genders, or cultural dress codes.

Addressing these biases and prejudices is crucial for creating an inclusive safety culture that values and protects all workers equally. This involves continuous training, promoting diversity and inclusion, encouraging open communication, and ensuring that safety management systems consider the needs and perspectives of all employees.