In a recent paper, Stuart Grant, Global Solutions Architect at DuPont Sustainable Solutions argues that five key risk mind-sets in South African mining affect safety outcomes. “The 2013/14 Facts and Figures published by the Chamber of Mines of South Africa showed that the mining sector accounted for 8.3% of South Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While this is a significant drop from the heady days of decades ago, it still represents a significant contribution to wealth generation for the local economy. There is no denying the monetary value generated by the mining industry to the country. However, along with the financial statistics defining this value come the safety statistics that highlight the cost of producing this value in terms of loss of life and limb. And they make for grim reading.”

Gold, platinum and coal industries account for the majority of the fatalities and even though the past decade has brought an improving trend, with fatalities falling, it is still too high. In South Africa, the three main causes of death in the mining industry are:

1. “General Classification types” (including falls from height, fume inhalation, being struck by an unsecured object)
2. “Falls of ground”
3. Transportation/Vehicle Movement

Traditionally, “Falls of ground” used to be the number one cause of mining deaths in South Africa, but recent improvements in this area have, for the first time, moved it to second position. This goes to show that concerted safety efforts pay dividends. If they could be applied to all areas and sustained, it is likely that they would lead to similar improvements in other causes of mining incidents and fatalities.

“Having worked with companies across a broad range of industries worldwide including mining companies in South Africa, we have noticed that there are a number of risk mind-sets prevalent in the South African mining industry that are at the root of these statistics and need to be explored and tackled for improvements to take place.” Key amongst them are the following beliefs:

1. We have improved;
2. Production is king and rules compliance;
3. A reliable plant is a safe plant;
4. Zero Harm is an unachievable goal;
5. Beware the harmful monster.

Grant briefly explores each of these.

“We have improved”
There is a lot of understandable trumpet blowing as safety trends at a mine show improvements. It is indeed important to recognise the efforts made. However, what is even more important is to ascertain if the improvement is sustainable. Improvement brings with it the inherent risks of complacency and vulnerability. It is easy for businesses to fall into three traps: – we are good, we have improved and we are different. Each of these traps is characterised by different behaviours, driven by the mind-sets of the people in the organisation. Mining industry leaders in South Africa therefore need to be alert to the type of beliefs they project about their industry to ensure they do not fall into these traps and prevent their entire organisation from falling into them as well. Certainly, to turn improvements into long-term, sustainable results, change must be based on intellectual honesty, a vision to achieve the really difficult and a drive to be better. Improvement has to be a continuous process.

“Production is king”
This is a common lament of Union officials associated with the mining industry in South Africa. To quote Paul Mardon, head of trade union Solidarity’s department of occupational health and safety: “The dictates of production targets often tend to be predisposed in favour of production and not compliance with safety standards.” The tendency of the mining industry is to shut down production after a major incident and to investigate, but the Unions suggest that these restarts often result in a spike of incidents. National Union of Mineworkers spokesman Lesiba Seshoka says: “The mining industry seems to see anything to do with safety as a punishment because it costs production.” This, of course, is opinion and perception, but an area that requires agreement and clear communication between those who run the mines and those who represent the best interests of the workers at the mine.

“A safe plant is a reliable plant”
This mind-set does not just apply to mining; it is universally true of many industries. Much has been published on this topic, but it is best summarised by Ron Moore who showed that there is a statistically significant link between improving reliability and improving safety. “Often there is a dynamic tension between the needs of production (usually driven by management), and the imperative for safe working conditions (often voiced by employee representatives). Management get frustrated because ‘The unions are obstinate and do not support or need to drive production without many concessions’. Unions get emotional and feel that workers are exploited because ‘Management just wants to push hard to get more for less’.” In fact, there is a common ground that both parties should be able easily to agree on: the fact that a reliable plant – one where production is reliable – is a safe plant – one which offers a good environment for people to work in.

“Zero Harm is an unachievable goal”
Two years ago, President Zuma in an address to the mining industry made clear that, “We need to vigorously support and entrench a culture of zero harm in this industry … the safety record of our mines has become a central issue that will be placed under the scrutiny of government.” In the effort to improve reliability of equipment and thus achieve a safe working environment, we have a useful measurement that allows us to assess performance. The Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) represents a “zero period”. The goal is to push this zero period out as far as possible. In safety, there is a similar measurement, the Mean Time Between Incident (MTBI). “The goal is to push this out as far as possible as well. In fact, the aim is to push it beyond the next horizon.
Some in the mining industry might say that accidents can and will happen, but we believe that the driver should be to push towards zero so that the mean time between failure/incident is a long as possible. The South Africa Mining industry really needs to grasp this mind-set.”

“Beware the harmful monster”
At the heart of every process exists a “harmful monster.” This monster is the energy which is uncontained, which places human beings in harm’s way. It can be physical energy, chemical energy or electrical energy. It exists and can be put to beneficial use to produce a commercial product, but it must be contained. The danger is if, for some reason, a containing fence fails. Then, the monster will get out. “We have often found that businesses fail to recognise that they are, in fact, dealing with a dangerous and harmful monster and that their current containment posts and fences are in a poor state.” Grant says that Du Pont has helped businesses with hazardous processes build strong and robust controls to contain their “monster” sustainably. The mentality that the mining industry in South Africa needs to adopt is that the mining process does contain a “harmful monster” which needs to be contained to prevent the three major causes of fatalities previously mentioned.

He concludees: “In order to drive sustainable improvements in reducing fatalities and in controlling hazards and mitigating risk, the adoption of the right mind-sets is vital. In fact no technical program on its own will sustainably improve the rate of fatalities in South African mining. We have highlighted five mind-sets in this article that we have encountered in many industries but that, if addressed correctly, will allow mining companies to continue to improve safety and reduce the rate of fatalities. The challenge for everyone with a vested interest in improving the safety and working conditions, and indeed profitability of the South African mining industry – through fewer disruptive accidents -, is to be honest about existing mind-sets and beliefs and to tackle them in a process of continuous improvement.”