Environment And Safety

For the two guys who had to climb over a snowbank as they unloaded their tools from a parked van on a cold winter day in New York City, environment was just one more hassle to deal with to get the job done. 

That’s nothing like a reader of a past edition of The NEWS thought. I’d used the words, “Environment, Health and Safety” to describe the corporate function responsible for providing advice and service in these matters; he fired back: “Cancel my subscription! I refuse to read anything coming from an outfit that would put environment ahead of safety.”

Despite what you might think, I actually admire a reader who pays that kind of attention to the written word. Clearly this was someone who was willing to back up words with actions. 

Pardonne-moi. 

Might I be allowed to point out that my use of this term of art merely reflected the common practice by most international organizations who define the standards and govern those functions. Were you to ask them (a question is always an option, and usually a good one) I suspect they’d explain the order of their words as a simple matter of alphabetization.

Not prioritization.

Environment Versus Safety

Three decades ago I was witness to a fascinating exchange between a CEO and a top lieutenant on the same point raised by my reader. What comes first: environment or safety? 

It happened at one of those town halls, where a rather perturbed CEO announced the launch of a compliance campaign for environmental, health and safety rules. In whatever order you want them. The big ones and all the small ones. 

You read that right. 

He read the Riot Act. Apparently, he’d had one too many NOVs to explain to the Board (Notices of Violation being those from regulatory agencies). Enough of that. 

For this outfit that was no small change, making this case the perfect illustration of the rules for making change happen – aka, execution – when the change is imposed from above. This one came straight from the top.

A fundamental principle of imposed change is that resistance is baked into the process: it’s like telling someone what their New Year’s Resolution is going to be. It logically follows that it’s best practice to always anticipate resistance. 

For 100% Compliance (as it became known) the first wave came in a very public display by a senior leader in the audience. It illustrates another useful point: when on the receiving end of change, executives are no different than the rest of us. They’re just better at resisting.

His came in the form of a question, which can be a very effective technique. Just don’t make the mistake of confusing resistance with raising real issues. “What do we do if we uncover a huge compliance problem? Do we shut down until we comply?”

Actually, that’s two questions. Both good ones, about execution.

He started with a statement of agreement. “Bill, we all can certainly understand the need for compliance with the safety rules. But with many environmental regulations, non-compliance is often a matter of an inconsequential bureaucratic detail, some agency’s idea of how to do something.”

In the trade, that’s known as “the set up.” It’s usually followed by “the clincher.”

“Are you saying that’s the same thing as not following a life critical safety rule?” 

You might see things differently, but that seemed to me to be a very reasonable argument; if nothing else, it was totally predicable. If you know anything about these matters, the executive did have a point.  In my book, that’s exactly the kind of objection a leader should show up prepared to deal with, which is a second, best practice.

Best practice notwithstanding, this one caught the boss totally unprepared. 

There was a pause, followed by what was clearly an off-the-cuff reply: “Well, when you don’t follow the environmental rules, there could be a spill. That’ll put some operator out there, wading through a pool of chemicals.”

That answer worked as well as you would expect.

I suppose that could happen, but seems to me there would have been any number of better explanations.

Starting with, “We don’t get to pick and choose which laws we comply with, do we?”

The Environment

The photo at the top makes a point about safety you don’t want to miss: the environment creates its share of challenges. Lugging tools over a snowbank with the temperature in the upper teens, it’s Nature not having a good day. Any number of ways this combo could produce harm to humans. Had there been – picture an injury report with the headline, “Slipped and fell on an ice-covered snowbank, breaking arm” – nobody up the chain of command should have been the least bit surprised. 

Unless they all work in Miami.

Don’t miss this, either: those are hazards found in simply getting the tools to the job. That’s when the job starts, as do many hazard identification and management processes. In real life, a lot of work that falls outside “the scope of the job” exposes people to hazards where and when it’s being done. 

In  a word, environment: different hazards; a different source of hazards.

The Power of The List

List making is a fascinating process. If you’ve taken a time management class like I once did, you learned how to make a list of the things you might consider doing, and then promptly ignoring all but the most important things. A great theory, but in practice your boss, customer and the people and things you manage aren’t necessarily inclined to go along with what you want to get done first.

That’s the problem with so many of these techniques: they just don’t work very well in practice. Please don’t read me wrong: I’m a huge fan of making lists. Study the techniques of those best at getting things done, list making is clearly one secret to their success. 

In The Power Of Habit, Charles Duhigg described Paul O’Neill, the CEO who turned around the safety culture at a huge basic materials company, as a lifelong list-maker. The best banker in the business, Jamie Dimon, carries a two-sided list in his jacket pocket: one side for the things he’s going to do; the other for the things his followers have promised him they’re going to do.

The stuff of genius!

As to hazard recognition, for two decades we’ve been asking our clients for a list of their injuries. Not the root cause, or who did something wrong; just what went wrong – in one short sentence. 

“Unloading tools from van, slipped and fell on an ice-covered snowbank, breaking arm” 

We call them Injury Headlines: the equivalent of the headline for a story in a newspaper. Every story has one. Massed together, you would be amazed by just how much information can be found in a simple list of injuries. Stripped of the details usually considered vital  – otherwise known as the complete report – useful things start jumping right off the page. 

Like they were hiding in plain sight.

Don’t take my word for it: make your own list. If it proves me right, you can always say thanks, by email.

The Work Environment

One of the simplest ways to look at every list of injuries is from the perspective of where the hazard came from: what was being done or where it was done. That isn’t a difference without a distinction. Case in point: those two in the picture might have been assigned to fix a leaking hot water heater in the basement of the building; doing that required them to lug their tools up and over a snowbank. 

They might also have had to haul them down three flights of stairs – because the elevator was out of order – and fix a water heater located in the basement of an old building in New York City. 

I will leave it to your imagination as to what other hazards might also be found there.

Now you see where this exercise is headed. Make up your list of injury headlines, sort them by source of hazard – job versus environment – what’s the distribution?

You can have the jobs; sight unseen, I’ll take the environment. Bear in mind I’ve been doing this exercise for decades.

Environment And Safety

The real story is that environment and safety are inseparable to the safety of those doing the work of the business. That’s not how everyone sees it. It’s not at all the way a well-intentioned reader saw it. Or quite the way a CEO thought it was, out in his operation.

That you can see clearly, now.

As they relate to the environment and safety, seeing things clearly is essential to recognizing what can hurt you – and your good followers.

Paul Balmert
February 2026