{"id":47,"date":"2026-05-12T07:24:05","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T07:24:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/klisurov.org\/?p=47"},"modified":"2026-05-12T09:48:30","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T09:48:30","slug":"otvad-chek-listite-nestandartni-podkhodi-zbut","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/klisurov.org\/en\/otvad-chek-listite-nestandartni-podkhodi-zbut\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond checklists: Non-standard approaches to OSH management"},"content":{"rendered":"

Series: OHS \u2014 Foundation and Evolution \u00b7 Part 2 of 2<\/p>\n

\u2190 Back to Part 1: Good practices in safety management<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Beyond checklists: Non-standard approaches to OSH management<\/h1>\n

How modern international practices complement the Bulgarian model of occupational safety and health<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Bulgarian OHS practice, we often follow a well-trodden path - risk assessment according to familiar templates, instructions against signature, checklists and protocols. Compliance with regulatory requirements is mandatory. However, an increasing number of consultants and employers are noticing that many accidents do not occur because of lack<\/em> of rules, and spite<\/em> of their existence.<\/p>\n

This article examines modern approaches that build on the classic safety model \u2014 not to replace it, but to make it work better.<\/p>\n

\n

Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR)<\/h2>\n

The SPoR discipline, created by Dr. Robert Long in Australia in 2003, starts from the proposition that risk is a social construct. The decisions that workers make in the field are not simply rational calculations\u2014they are influenced by peer pressure, identity, unconscious heuristics, and team relationships.<\/p>\n

SPoR criticizes "totalitarian" models such as Zero Harm and crude forms of behavior-based safety because they reduce the complexity of human behavior to simple cause-and-effect schemes.<\/p>\n

In practical terms, SPoR works with small conversations \u2014 iCue engagement<\/strong> with no more than 2\u20133 people. Research on the bystander effect and groupthink shows that in larger groups the quality of risk assessment drops dramatically. The methods are visual, semiotic, experiential \u2014 not new checklists, but tools for deep understanding.<\/p>\n

\n In Australia and Scandinavia, a number of mining and oil companies use SPoR as a complement to ISO 45001, not as a replacement. BHP Billiton has integrated elements of SPoR into its safety program following a series of serious incidents.\n<\/div>\n

Human and Organizational Performance (HOP)<\/h2>\n

HOP, developed by Todd Conklin and Sidney Dekker, is based on five principles:<\/p>\n

\n
1. Mistake is normal<\/strong>For every person, without exception.<\/div>\n
2. Guilt doesn't improve anything.<\/strong>It only blinds the system.<\/div>\n
3. Training is voluntary<\/strong>It cannot be forced.<\/div>\n
4. Context breeds behavior<\/strong>Not the character of the worker.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
5. The leader's reaction is key<\/strong>She decides whether there will be a report next time.<\/div>\n

In practice, HOP replaces the question \u201e"Who is to blame?"\u201c<\/em> \u0441 \u201e"What in the system allowed the error to happen?"\u201c<\/em> The approach has long been applied in aviation and nuclear energy, and has recently entered the construction and manufacturing industries.<\/p>\n

\n 38%<\/strong> \u2014 a decrease in the frequency of incidents over five years at the American construction group Cianbro after implementing HOP principles.\n<\/div>\n

Safety-II \u2014 learning from success<\/h2>\n

Erik Hollnagel proposed a revolution in safety thinking. Instead of studying only incidents (Safety-I), it is more useful to understand why thousands of operations are successful.<\/p>\n

\n In a production in which 99.9% from shifts<\/strong> end without incident, traditional practice ignores this vast database.\n<\/div>\n

Safety-II examines and learns from everyday adaptations\u2014the trade-offs operators make to compensate for system deficiencies. Success is not the absence of errors, but the actively achieved result.<\/p>\n

Just Culture<\/h2>\n

James Reason's concept, further developed by Sidney Dekker, makes a critical distinction:<\/p>\n