Industrial Safety Strategies Supporting the Zero Accident Vision in High-Risk Organizations: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Industrial safety in high-risk sectors such as mining, construction, oil and gas, petrochemicals, and offshore fishing remains a strategic global challenge due to the high incidence of occupational accidents and their human, financial, and legal consequences. Despite international standards and advancements in safety strategies, significant barriers persist in the effective implementation of a Zero Accident culture. This scoping review, conducted under PRISMA-ScR guidelines, analyzed 11 studies selected from 232 records, focusing on documented practices in both multinational corporations from developed economies and local companies in emerging markets. The methodological synthesis validated theoretical models, practical interventions, and regulatory frameworks across diverse industrial settings. The findings led to the construction of a five-pillar model that provides the structural foundation for a comprehensive safety strategy: (1) strategic safety planning, defining long-term vision, mission, and objectives with systematic risk analysis; (2) executive leadership and commitment, expressed through decision-making, resource allocation, and on-site engagement; (3) people and competencies, emphasizing continuous training, communities of practice, and the development of safe behaviors; (4) process risk management, using validated protocols, structured methodologies, and early warning systems; and (5) performance measurement and auditing, combining reactive and proactive indicators within continuous improvement cycles. The results demonstrate that only a holistic approach, one that aligns strategy, culture, and performance, can sustain a robust safety culture. While notable reductions in incident rates were observed when these pillars were applied, the current literature is dominated by theoretical contributions and model replication from developed countries, with limited empirical evaluation in emerging contexts. This study provides a comparative, practice-oriented framework to guide the implementation and refinement of safety systems in high-risk organizations. This review was registered in Open Science Framework (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/XFDPR.

1. Introduction

In today’s global landscape, occupational safety and health have gained increasing relevance on organizational agendas due to their direct impact on sustainability, regulatory compliance, and competitiveness [1,2,3]. Occupational incidents in developing nations pose a major public health and economic burden, with disproportionately high rates of injuries and fatalities across critical sectors. A significant number of these incidents go undocumented due to insufficient reporting mechanisms, leading to persistent data gaps that hinder effective intervention [4]. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that approximately 2.78 million individuals die each year because of occupational accidents and work-related illnesses, with low- and middle-income countries carrying most of this burden [5].

Certain high-risk sectors are particularly affected. In agriculture, workers face an annual injury rate of 35 per 100, often due to hand tool injuries and physical strain, while nearly 60% of healthcare workers experience occupational injuries at some point in their careers [6]. These elevated rates are commonly attributed to inadequate safety training, substandard working environments, and excessive workloads [7]. Despite international efforts to promote occupational safety through guidelines and standards, implementation remains inconsistent, particularly in contexts where resources, regulatory oversight, or organizational commitment are limited. They aim to foster a safety culture centered on proactive hazard identification and risk control [8].

At the sectoral level, high-risk industries have received particular attention due to the inherently hazardous nature of their operations. Sectors such as mining, construction, petrochemicals, heavy manufacturing, and fishing consistently report some of the highest rates of occupational injury and fatality, as noted in the World Risk Poll 2024 Report [9]. In response, companies in these fields have adopted stringent regulatory frameworks and advanced risk management strategies aligned with international safety standards [10].

These organizations have gradually embraced a preventive approach, viewing safety not merely as a legal requirement, but as a core corporate value. This shift is grounded in principles such as prioritizing the life and health of workers, fostering personal responsibility among managers and staff for safety practices, and ensuring active worker participation in protection and safety efforts [11]. The implementation of safety management models based on behavioral strategies and cultural development has proven essential in reducing workplace accidents and strengthening employee commitment to accident prevention.

From an organizational standpoint, the Zero Accident Vision (ZAV) is best understood as both a structured strategy for preventing severe and fatal incidents and a normative framework that drives continuous improvement. On the other hand, the Zero Accident Culture (ZAC) reflects the cultural evolution of this vision, embedding safety as a shared organizational value sustained by leadership, trust, and participation. Furthermore, we differentiate between ZAV and ZAC. ZAV should be understood as the goal, as a strategic orientation that provides direction and measurable targets for safety performance. ZAC, on the other hand, represents the journey, a deep cultural and organizational transformation process where safety values, leadership commitment, and proactive learning are embedded in daily operations. This distinction clarifies that while ZAV provides the destination, ZAC constitutes the sustainable pathway to achieving it.

Within this perspective, ZAV has become a strategic goal for many companies, particularly in high-risk sectors, as part of broader efforts to minimize the costs associated with workplace incidents and to ensure safe working conditions [12]. ZAV is not merely the aspiration to eliminate all workplace accidents; it is a proactive and systemic approach that views every incident as preventable and promotes continuous improvement, shared responsibility, and a culture where safety is a core organizational value. While a wide array of theoretical and methodological approaches to industrial safety management have been documented, challenges remain in effectively implementing these strategies across diverse business contexts.

Despite its strategic relevance, ZAV has been criticized when misinterpreted as a rigid performance target. Abebe et al. [13] argue that cost–benefit constraints, demotivation caused by unattainable goals, and reliance on reactive indicators can make its application counterproductive. Furthermore, Rosencrantz et al. [14] highlight its lack of temporal precision and evaluability, noting the difficulty of weighing fatalities against serious injuries in the short and medium term. These criticisms, however, reveal risks of misuse rather than intrinsic flaws. When framed as a commitment strategy and coupled with organizational learning, ZAV evolves into ZAC, which emphasizes empowerment, innovation, and cultural sustainability [15].

Building on these foundations, this article proposes five interrelated pillars—strategic planning, leadership, competencies, hazard control, and performance monitoring—as a structured model for implementing ZAV within OHS management systems such as ISO 45001 [16]. This framework is presented as the article’s main contribution, aiming to operationalize ZAV into a sustainable Zero Accident Culture.

2. State of the Art

Despite the adoption of multiple safety management models, many high-risk companies continue to face barriers to effective implementation. These challenges often stem from organizational resistance, lack of commitment across hierarchical levels, and limited integration of safety into corporate culture. The literature has identified several strategies and best practices aimed at enhancing safety performance in hazardous operational contexts. A foundational contribution comes from Narain et al. [17], who proposed a conceptual framework for implementing the ZAV in high-risk manufacturing industries in India. Through employee surveys, the study identified three key components for accident prevention: safety knowledge and skills, personal care guidelines, and management of occupational risk factors in the workplace.

Building on the human dimension of safety, Parshina et al. [18] analyzed a Russian railway company’s experience, where the integration of a safety-oriented corporate culture and regular audits helped reduce occupational incidents. The study emphasizes the importance of continuous monitoring and the role of infrastructure-specific constraints, which are comparable to those found in manufacturing sectors. Sankar et al. [19] examined safety leadership styles in the construction industry, one of the highest-risk sectors. The authors analyzed various leadership models (transformational, transactional, distributed, vertical, horizontal, and balanced), concluding that a human-centered approach emphasizing leader-subordinate relationships can positively impact safety. However, the study also highlighted limitations due to age and professional experience, particularly in industries with stable, aging workforces that may resist behavioral change.

The role of psychological and behavioral factors in risk perception was emphasized by Rahim et al. [20] in the oil and gas sector. Their study used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to prioritize safety interventions and highlighted the importance of managerial commitment. Preventive reporting systems were also framed as essential for establishing continuous improvement processes. Focusing on the mining industry, Tsichla and Adam [21] underlined the need to develop workers’ risk perception skills through active and participatory training methods. Their approach included immersive virtual reality simulations and risk control technologies, enhanced by strong leadership and a culture of safe behavior. Notably, the study addressed emerging and localized risks such as cognitive fatigue.

Glebova et al. [10] conducted an evaluation of safety culture management in high-risk organizations using a framework based on sixteen cultural elements. The study employed radar (petal) diagrams to analyze trends in safety performance indicators and implemented corrective action plans. Executive leadership was identified as critical in promoting training initiatives and process automation for more effective safety management. Ordysiński [22] contributed to understanding safety behavior through the lens of social exchange theory. The study argued that trust and commitment are fundamental drivers of voluntary safety-related behaviors, also referred to as safety citizenship behaviors. This perspective echoes the work of Wu et al. [23], who similarly emphasized how interpersonal dynamics can shape proactive engagement in safety initiatives.

The human capital model and the concept of safety citizenship behavior, as applied to engineering project teams, were proposed by Wu et al. [23]. This approach is particularly relevant for any strategy aiming to implement the Zero Accident Vision, as it structurally complements the earlier work by Twaalfhoven and Kortleven [24], who emphasized the importance of embedding safety considerations from the project planning stage. Wu et al. introduced an innovative capacity–behavior–performance model, which focuses on enhancing the performance of design teams by leveraging individuals’ safety competencies and behaviors. The model is considered practical and replicable across different teams and industries, especially in high-risk sectors.

In parallel, Twaalfhoven and Kortleven [24] addressed the issue of voluntary safety violations and human error as critical factors contributing to workplace accidents. Their study highlighted the ethical responsibilities of both workers and management, emphasizing that human error is an unavoidable element. Consequently, safety systems must be designed to anticipate and manage such errors effectively.

While the reviewed studies offer a comprehensive overview of key factors for fostering a safety culture and implementing the Zero Accident Vision in high-risk organizations, notable knowledge gaps remain. Many existing investigations focus primarily on theoretical frameworks and regulatory approaches, underlining the importance of leadership, training, communication, and organizational culture as central elements for accident prevention. However, there is a lack of comparative research that synthesizes the most effective strategies documented in the literature and identifies common patterns or sector-specific differences across high-risk industries.

Moreover, despite the existence of multiple methodologies for assessing and strengthening safety culture, no consolidated analysis has been conducted that integrates systematic reviews on the topic. This limits the identification of optimal strategies tailored to different organizational contexts. Literature still lacks a comprehensive perspective that not only compiles best practices but also evaluates their practical applicability and the specific challenges companies face during implementation.

To address this gap, the present study proposes a scoping review aimed at identifying and analyzing documented strategies and best practices to advance the Zero Accident Vision in high-risk organizations. By offering a comparative analysis of these approaches, this research will contribute to the development of applied knowledge that can inform both future academic inquiry and practical decision-making in industrial safety management. The objective is to synthesize the most relevant strategies and assess their impact on cultivating a strong safety culture across varied industrial settings.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

This research adopts a scoping review methodology, which is appropriate for mapping the key concepts, strategies, and practices within a given field, particularly when the available literature is diverse or fragmented. As noted by Chambergo-Michilot [25], scoping reviews are especially valuable when aiming to clarify conceptual boundaries, summarize findings from previous studies, and identify gaps in current knowledge—often serving as a preliminary step for more targeted systematic reviews.

Given that the goal of this study is to synthesize existing evidence on industrial safety strategies aimed at achieving the ZAV in high-risk organizations, this methodological approach was deemed suitable. The scoping review enables a structured and transparent examination of the literature, providing a foundation for understanding both recurring practices and sector-specific challenges in safety management.

3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for this scoping review were established to ensure that the selected literature directly supports the objective of identifying strategies that promote a Zero Accident Vision in high-risk organizational settings. Studies were included if they examined the impact of cultural change and risk management policies in the workplace, assessed the effectiveness of transitioning toward a zero-accident safety culture, or compared culture-based approaches with other safety management models. These criteria ensured a focus on research that provides practical insights into how organizational behavior and policy influence accident prevention. To allow for the identification of relevant developments over time and to address potential gaps in existing knowledge, only studies published within the past ten years were considered eligible, provided they met the content or methodological focus outlined above.

Conversely, studies were excluded if they remained purely theoretical without offering practical analysis or real-world implementation cases. Also excluded were publications lacking measurable success indicators, such as accident rate reductions or demonstrable organizational change as well as those that addressed safety culture in a combined context of both high- and low-risk industries without differentiating their findings. Research focused solely on road safety, traffic accidents, or ground transportation systems was also excluded, as these topics fall outside the scope of industrial workplace safety. Additionally, any study published within the ten-year window that did not meet the specified content criteria was not considered for inclusion.

3.3. Search Strategy

The selection of databases for this scoping review was based on their relevance to engineering, industrial safety, organizational risk management, and related applied fields. Additionally, the platforms were chosen due to their robust indexing of peer-reviewed publications and the coherence of preliminary results with the study objective.

Five databases were consulted: Scopus, Web of Science, SpringerLink, IEEE Xplore, and Nature. These sources ensured multidisciplinary coverage, including technical, managerial, and behavioral aspects of workplace safety in high-risk industries. The keywords used to develop both search strings are shown in

Table 1. Keyword categories and sample combinations.

Category	Keywords		Sample Combinations
Type of industry	“high-risk industries” “high-hazard industries”	“hazardous” “dangerous”	“high-risk industries” “hazardous operations”
Vision Zero and variants	“Vision Zero” “zero accidents” “zero harm”	“zero injury” “Goal Zero” “injury-free workplace”	“Vision Zero” “zero harm” “injury-free workplace”
Safety culture and strategy	“safety culture” “safety strategies” “safety programs”	“organizational safety” “leadership in safety”	“organizational safety” “safety programs” “leadership in safety”

.

To conduct the search within these databases, two query structures were developed and tested. As presented in

Table 2. Final search strings.

Search Type	Search String
Exploratory	(“high-risk industries” OR “high-hazard industries” OR “hazardous” OR “dangerous”) AND (“Vision Zero” OR “zero accidents” OR “zero harm” OR “zero injury” OR “Goal Zero” OR “injury-free workplace”) NOT (“road safety” OR “transport safety” OR “road transport safety” OR “traffic safety” OR “safety on the road”)
Focused	(“high-risk industries” OR “high-hazard industries” OR “hazardous” OR “dangerous”) AND (“Vision Zero” OR “zero accidents” OR “zero harm” OR “zero injury” OR “Goal Zero” OR “injury-free workplace”) AND (“safety culture” OR “safety strategies” OR “safety programs” OR “organizational safety” OR “leadership in safety”) NOT (“road safety” OR “transport safety” OR “road transport safety” OR “traffic safety” OR “safety on the road”)

, the exploratory search string served to identify general research involving Vision Zero in hazardous environments, excluding unrelated topics such as road safety. In contrast, the focused search string combined references to Vision Zero with terms related to safety culture and strategy, allowing for a more specific and relevant selection of studies. Following initial testing, the exploratory query was selected as the final search string for the primary document retrieval process, as it produced the most precise alignment with the study’s inclusion goals and thematic scope.

3.4. Study Selection Process

This scoping review followed the methodological framework proposed by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), which is designed to ensure transparency and reproducibility in evidence mapping [26]. The review was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) under the registration number 10.17605/OSF.IO/XFDPR).

Unlike systematic reviews, the goal of PRISMA-ScR is not to assess the quality or effect size of individual studies, but rather to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of evidence on a specific topic.

In this study, the application of PRISMA-ScR involved several key steps: formulation of the research question, definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria, design of a search strategy using Boolean operators, selection of databases, screening of results, data extraction, and synthesis.

The study selection process was carried out in two phases. First, both authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all documents retrieved through the database search to eliminate clearly irrelevant studies. In the second phase, the full texts of potentially eligible studies were reviewed to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria in terms of focus, methodological scope, and relevance to the Vision Zero framework in high-risk industries.

Throughout the process, both reviewers discussed and reached consensus on all inclusion decisions. No third-party arbitration was required. All decisions and steps were documented in accordance with PRISMA-ScR standards. The study selection flow is summarized in the PRISMA diagram presented in Section 4.

3.5. Data Extraction

For the data extraction process, a structured form was developed to collect and organize the most relevant information from each selected study. The fields were defined according to the objectives of the review and aligned with the criteria for identifying strategies and practices related to the implementation of Vision Zero in high-risk organizations.

The extracted variables included (i) study reference (authors and year), (ii) description of the practical application of Vision Zero or related safety initiatives, (iii) evaluation of cultural transition toward a safety-oriented organizational model, (iv) use of clear success indicators (such as reductions in accident rates or demonstrable organizational change), (v) presence of comparative analysis with other safety management models, (vi) discussion of the cultural or political impact of the strategies, and (vii) the methodology used in the study.

4. Results

The application of the final search string across the selected databases yielded a total of 232 records. After the removal of duplicates and one automated exclusion based on publication year, 205 studies were retained for title and abstract screening. In this phase, articles that did not directly address organizational strategies aligned with Vision Zero, or that lacked practical indicators or applied frameworks, were excluded. Following this process, a smaller subset of studies was identified for full-text review. Additional exclusions were made at this stage due to a lack of methodological alignment or the absence of implementation data. As a result, 11 studies were ultimately included in the final synthesis. The selection process is visually summarized in Figure 1, which outlines the flow of identification, screening, and inclusion of records according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

4.1. Description of Included Studies

The selected studies share essential characteristics that supported their inclusion in this review, particularly their explicit reference to organizational models, safety strategies, or cultural frameworks related to the Vision Zero approach. All were based on applied experiences, either through case studies, strategic planning reports, or field-based implementations in high-risk sectors.

Some studies, such as those by Chandler et al. [27], Akintola et al. [28], and Jain et al. [29], present structured models that integrate analytical tools with clearly defined strategic components. Others, such as Egbeocha et al. [30] and Molyneux [31], offer descriptive analyses of cultural transitions in hazardous work environments, with enough depth to qualify as applied contributions.

Several papers emphasize the role of standardization and integration of occupational safety and health policies, including Mazur [32] and, again, Akintola et al. [28]. The studies differ in terms of regional focus and industry sector, which adds a comparative and global dimension to the review. For example, Sudarsan and Nithiyanantham [33] examines safety culture transformation in India’s construction sector, while Häkkinen [34] provides a systemic view of safety management in international industrial contexts.

Additionally, Franceschini et al. [35] describe the Safety Pact initiative in the petroleum industry, emphasizing the organizational role of near-miss reporting and collaborative learning mechanisms. Nguyen et al. [36] proposes a strategic alignment model that integrates people, processes, and leadership to sustain the transition toward a Zero-Accident Culture, highlighting systemic coherence across organizational levels. Finally, Hethmon [37] contributes the perspective of the mining sector, presenting practical insights from industry experts on the operationalization of Vision Zero principles in extractive industries characterized by high-risk conditions.

Methodological approaches also vary across the studies. While some focus on documenting successful practices, others develop formal mechanisms for performance evaluation and strategic alignment. This diversity in scope and depth is summarized in

Table 3. General comparison of the studies and main findings.

Reference	Practical Application	Cultural Transition Assessment	Clear Success Indicators	Comparison with Other Models	Cultural and Political Impact	Methodology
Chandler, E. et al. (2016) [27]	Yes	Comprehensive	Yes	Yes	High	Applied methodologies with practical relevance
Akintola, A. et al. (2016) [28]	Yes	Not applicable	No	Yes	Low	Applied methodologies with practical relevance
Egbeocha, J.O. et al. (2015) [30]	Yes	Moderate	Yes	Partial	Medium	Intervention study
Molyneux, J. (2018) [31]	Yes	Moderate	Partial	No	Medium	Practical case study
Jain, A. et al. (2018) [29]	Yes	Comprehensive	Yes	Yes	High	Mixed-method case study
Mazur, A. (2015) [32]	Yes	Moderate	Yes	Yes	High	Audits and Lean approach
Sudarsan, J.S. and Nithiyanantham, S. (2021) [33]	Yes	Basic	No	Partial	Medium	Direct intervention
Häkkinen, K. (2015) [34]	Yes	Not applicable	No	Yes	Low	Applied methodologies with practical relevance
Franceschini, L. et al. (2019) [35]	Yes	Moderate	Partial	Yes	Medium–High	Qualitative study with strategic analysis
Nguyen, N. et al. (2021) [36]	Yes	Moderate	Partial	No	Medium	Mixed-method study with regional focus
Hethmon, T. (2018) [37]	Yes	Moderate	Partial	Yes	Medium	Normative case study

, which compares the selected studies across several dimensions, including practical application, cultural impact, implementation mechanisms, and methodological structure.

4.2. Organizational Cultural Impact and Occupational Risk Management Policies

The studies [27,28,29,34] emphasize the transformative role of organizational culture in managing occupational risks. They converge on the notion that safety culture requires active leadership, workforce engagement, and the internalization of safety as a core value. Risk management policies, while necessary, are considered insufficient unless integrated into daily practices that go beyond regulatory compliance. In contrast, refs. [33,35,36] provide applied qualitative methodologies showing how cultural change strategies can be embedded at multiple organizational levels. Meanwhile, refs. [30,31,32] demonstrate that integrating safety into organizational processes elevates risk management into a strategic business function. Across these contributions, the key insight is that cultural transformation is indispensable to ensuring the long-term sustainability of safety initiatives.

4.3. Comparison of Cultural Change Approaches in Proposed and Traditional Models

Several studies [27,29,32,37] contrast innovative cultural models with traditional compliance-based frameworks. These studies highlight how approaches centered on personal commitment, organizational learning, and systemic support mechanisms outperform prescriptive, rule-driven models. Other contributions [28,30,35] reveal that earlier approaches often overlooked safety integration during strategic planning stages, limiting their effectiveness. In summary, the evidence suggests that newer cultural models prioritize systemic alignment and learning, whereas older frameworks remain focused on enforcement and control.

4.4. Evaluation of the Transition Toward a Zero-Accident Culture

Publications such as [27,28,29,32] describe structured transition processes toward ZAC, including diagnostic phases, phased implementation, and long-term sustainment. They propose measurable milestones, with risk perception and employee engagement as key monitoring indicators. By contrast, refs. [30,33,34] adopt a more descriptive approach, presenting testimonies and observed improvements in resource-constrained contexts. Franceschini et al. [35] and Nguyen et al. [36] conceptualize transition as continuous alignment of people, processes, and values, underscoring that ZAC is not a static endpoint but an evolutionary process of organizational improvement.

4.5. Analysis of Practical Implementation

The most detailed accounts of implementation are provided by [20,22,25], which describe concrete interventions such as targeted training, restructuring of meetings, and integration of behavioral metrics. Progress was evaluated through indicators like incident reporting, compliance with critical controls, and safety observations. Sudarsan et al. [33], focusing on the Indian construction sector, illustrate how small-scale interventions can still be phased in and monitored effectively. These examples confirm that Vision Zero strategies can be operationalized across diverse industrial and regional contexts.

4.6. Evidence of Clear Success Indicators in the Proposed Models

Studies such as [29,35] report quantifiable outcomes that validate their cultural models, while Akintola et al. [28] demonstrate measurable improvements through Shell’s CSSS initiative across 70 projects. Mazur [32] advances technical indicators related to working conditions and reporting, strengthening the empirical foundation of the model. Jain et al. [29] also highlight the lack of standardized indicators across organizations but propose a reference framework combining reactive and proactive measures. Collectively, these studies provide evidence that structured performance assessment is essential to validate the effectiveness of cultural transformation initiatives.

4.7. Review of Methodologies

The methodologies vary across the selected studies, but most employ a qualitative orientation with strong comparative analysis [27,28,29,30,31,32,34,37]. These works primarily rely on documentary evidence and best-practice frameworks refined through industrial experience, which are categorized as applied methodologies with practical relevance. In contrast, refs. [33,35,36] apply field-based interventions and measurements, reporting contextual variability in outcomes depending on organizational hierarchy and scale of implementation. This diversity enriches the evidence base by combining systemic insights with practical observations, thereby enhancing the applicability of findings across different organizational contexts.

4.8. Comparative Synthesis and International Benchmarks

The six inclusion criteria provided the analytical base of this review, but the deeper examination of the evidence revealed eight recurring topics that structure the transition from Vision Zero into practical application: differences between ZAV and ZAC, near-miss reporting, safety excellence as strategy, values and strategic realism, leadership and commitment, performance measurement, conceptual clarity, and technical competence. These categories refine the earlier dimensions by linking organizational culture, implementation processes, and methodological rigor into a coherent framework. To strengthen validity, the findings contrasted with global references from the ILO and World Health Organization (WHO), which emphasize systemic prevention, worker participation, and policy integration. This comparison highlights that international benchmarks (macro-level) and industry-specific evidence (micro-level) are complementary, together offering a more comprehensive perspective on achieving Zero Accident goals in high-risk industries.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the structural differences between these sources. Because ILO and WHO are funded primarily through assessed member-state contributions, complemented by voluntary donations, their outputs are oriented toward broad public policy guidance rather than sector-specific technical details (WHO [38]; ILO [39]). This funding model ensures global comparability but inevitably limits the operational granularity required in high-risk enterprises. By contrast, mixed-capital or private–technical programs—such as NIOSH FACE—provide context-specific insights (e.g., fall hazards or PFAS use) that are directly transferable to industrial practice.

Table 4. Comparative analysis of ZAV benchmarking against global and private studies.

Source	5.1. Differences Between ZAV and ZAC	5.2. Near-Miss Reporting	5.3. Safety Excellence	5.4. Values, Goals, and Realism	5.5. Roles, Leadership, and Commitment	5.6. Measurement & Assessment	5.7. Conceptual Clarity	5.8. Technical Competence
WHO/ILO Global Monitoring Report [40]	Does not address ZAV/ZAC; focuses on global quantification of risks and burdens. Gap in cultural dimension.	Does not mention near misses; concentrates on mortality and exposures. Preventive gap.	Provides global metrics as strategic baseline, but without detailing corporate strategies.	Links safety with SDG 8.8; lacks concreteness in organizational goals.	Emphasizes public policies and national systems, not direct corporate leadership.	Strong contribution: robust methodology, disaggregated by sex, age, and region.	Defines risk–outcome pairs with high consistency; limited by missing data for certain risks.	Does not address workforce competence; highlights need for national statistical capacities.
WHO/ILO Technical Report [41]	Does not address cultural vision, methodological focus. Gap in ZAV→ZAC transition.	Does not include near misses; focused on exposures and diseases.	Provides inputs for prevention plans; does not discuss corporate strategic excellence.	Linked to SDG 8.8; no explicit focus on realistic corporate goals.	Highlights institutional alliances (WHO/ILO); does not address organizational leadership.	Large database, microsimulation, systematic reviews; global standard for measurement.	Transparent methodology; limited in occupational and sectoral disaggregation.	Emphasizes need for statistical and methodological expertise rather than operational skills.
Pega et al. [42]	Does not mention ZAV/ZAC; shows impact of long hours, integrating chronic risks into “zero accident” goals.	Focuses on medical outcomes (IHD, stroke); does not address near misses.	Demonstrates that long hours deteriorate health; calls for excellence policies regulating work time.	Notes unrealistic goals when excessive hours are ignored; links prevention with labor justice.	Recommendation of working time regulations and enforcement; require leadership.	Uses systematic reviews and surveys; defines ≥55 h/week as occupational risk.	Provides clear criteria for causality; acknowledges methodological limitations.	Reinforces need for expertise in policy design and occupational epidemiology.
Hulshof et al. [43]	Does not discuss ZAV/ZAC; high prevalence of ergonomic risks shows insufficiency of vision without sustained safety culture.	Does not analyze near misses; highlights need to integrate them in ergonomics.	Recommends including ergonomic management in safety excellence strategies.	Limited global representativeness; challenge for universal goals and values.	Highlights WHO/ILO and expert roles; without institutional commitment risks remain underrated.	Limitations in self-reports; calls for more objective ergonomic metrics.	Recognizes bias and indirectness; initial framework to include MSD in global burden.	Highlights need for skills in ergonomic measurement and occupational epidemiology.
ILO Quick Guide [44]	Does not address ZAV/ZAC; stresses comparable statistics as basis for policies.	The warning about the lack of information suggests integrating near misses into the indicators.	Recommends reliable data to prioritize preventive strategies by sector/occupation.	Links statistics with SDG 8.8; calls for contextual interpretation at national level.	Requires inter-institutional cooperation; leadership critical in data and management.	Core: data quality, comparability, time series, disaggregation.	Calls for coherent indicator frameworks and joint interpretation.	Emphasize statistical, sampling, and harmonization competencies.
Dong et al. [45]	Demonstrates that ZAV is insufficient without ZAC: without PFAS use culture, zero falls is unattainable.	Focuses on fatalities, not nearly misses; near-miss data could have anticipated failures.	Reinforces need for effective technical measures: PFAS availability and use.	Shows that zero accident goals are unrealistic without real access to fall protection.	Highlights shared responsibility: leaders, workers, and regulators.	Provides detailed data on falls and PFAS use, useful for performance evaluation.	Defines clear analysis criteria; conceptual consistency applicable to construction.	Demonstrates need for technical skills in PFAS installation, use, and supervision.

presents a benchmarking analysis between WHO/ILO global findings and selected technical studies to assess their applicability to the eight discussion axes in high-risk organizational contexts.

The five public studies analyzed [40,41,42,43,44] confirm the global value of WHO/ILO contributions in establishing standardized methods, international benchmarks, and policy-oriented frameworks. However, they consistently lack focus on preventive culture, near-miss reporting, organizational leadership, and technical competence—dimensions essential to translating a Zero Accident Vision into a Zero Accident Culture in high-risk industries. By contrast, the private NIOSH FACE study [45] demonstrates, through detailed sectoral evidence on fatal falls and PFAS use, how organizational culture, leadership accountability, and technical skills directly determine safety outcomes. Although geographically limited to the United States, its practical insights complement the broad normative perspective of international agencies.

It is important to highlight, rather than being in opposition, that the macro-level perspective of WHO/ILO and the micro-level insights of sectoral studies such as NIOSH FACE are complementary. Together, they provide a multi-layered understanding: international agencies establish standardized benchmarks and policy frameworks, while technical studies supply sector-specific evidence to operationalize prevention. This duality strengthens the global relevance of ZAV and ensures practical applicability in high-risk industries.

4.9. Contributions of the Selected Studies to the Review

Building on the six inclusion criteria that guided the selection of the 11 studies, the in-depth analysis revealed eight topics from the distinction between Zero Accident Vision and Zero Accident Culture to the technical competence required for sustaining preventive practices. While Table 4 summarizes the contrasts between global benchmarks (WHO/ILO) and private–technical perspectives,

Table 5. Contributions of the selected studies to the review.

Study	ZAV vs. ZAC	Near-Miss Reporting	Safety Excellence as Strategy	Values & Strategic Realism	Leadership & Commitment	Performance Measurement	Conceptual Clarity	Technical Competence
Chandler, E. et al. [27]	Differentiates vision vs. culture in PSM adoption	Incident learning systems	Frames excellence via structured PSM pillars	Regulatory vs. practical balance	Managerial support critical	KPIs for compliance & learning	Defines PSM as systemic	Strong process safety base
Akintola, A. et al. [28]	Implicit ZAC through harmonized practices	Reporting barriers in construction	Excellence via standardized procedures	Practical feasibility vs. ideals	Site managers’ leadership central	Audits & checklists	Simplifies models for practice	Focus on site hazards
Jain, A. et al. [29]	Sustaining ZAV across workforce demographics	Near-miss vital for cultural adaptation	Excellence via long-term reinforcement	Adapts to workforce diversity	Leaders shape cultural transfer	Metrics adapted to turnover	Clarifies “Goal Zero”	Competence = demographic-tailored training
Egbeocha, J.O. et al. [30]	Critiques Zero Harm vs. fatality precursors	Skepticism on minor injury stats	Strategy = fatality root cause focus	Emphasizes realistic, site-specific goals	Managerial alignment crucial	Tracks precursors, not frequency	Questions about Bird’s Pyramid	Behavioral influence prioritized
Molyneux, J. [31]	ZAV integrated into mainstream business	Implied via integrated reporting	Excellence = embedding HSW in core	Strong CSR/value alignment	Leadership drives embedding	Integrated indicators	Systemic conceptual model	Technical competence secondary
Mazur, A. [32]	Aligns ZAV/ZAC with excellent standards	Incident registration as input	OHS excellence linked to TQM	Realism via continuous improvement	Leadership as EFQM enabler	Balanced scorecards & audits	Clarifies OHS-MS/EFQM links	Technical rigor in OHS-MS
Sudarsan, J.S. & Nithiyanantham, S. [33]	ZAC aligned via expert consensus	Highlights under-reporting	Excellence = optimized safety culture	Realism in developing economy	Managerial priority essential	Suggests quantifiable indices	Clarifies safety constructs	Technical insights from expert survey
Häkkinen, K. [34]	Moves from basic safety to ZAV/ZAC integration	Stresses near-miss systems	Excellence = proactive safety maturity	Strategic realism emphasized	Leaders as cultural drivers	Uses leading indicators	Conceptual model of maturity	Technical detail in system design
Franceschini, L. et al. [35]	Promotes shared ZAV commitment	Pact requires open reporting	Excellence via collective agreements	Embeds shared values	Collective & visible leadership	Joint monitoring mechanisms	Pact clarifies cultural meaning	Technical detail less emphasized
Nguyen, N. et al. [36]	Applies ZAV via ISSA 7 Golden Rules	Near-miss reporting integrated in Rule 2	Excellence = embedding Golden Rules	Realism through national adaptation	Leadership central in Rules 1 & 7	Rule 3: targets & metrics	Rules clarify scope of ZAV	Competence via Rule 6 (training)
Hethmon, T. [37]	Explores realism of Zero Harm ambition	Warns of under-reporting risk	Strategy = integrated systems, culture, leadership	Stresses realistic definitions of harm	Leadership as culture driver	Differentiates injuries vs. illnesses	Clarifies scope of “harm”	Technical competence in mining systems

presents a more detailed mapping of how each of the 11 reviewed publications contributes to these eight topics. This synthesis highlights not only converging arguments but also the diversity of approaches, from conceptual clarity and leadership engagement to measurable performance indicators and applied technical skills.

5. Discussion

This section analyzes safety excellence as a strategic dimension within organizational culture. Drawing from the reviewed studies, we identify key elements necessary to consolidate a realistic and technically grounded Zero Accident Vision. These include leadership, performance measurement, strategic planning, and workforce competence. At the same time, it is important to differentiate ZAV, understood as the strategic and normative framework, from the ZAC, which reflects the cultural evolution and integration of safety as a core organizational value. The discussion also contrasts the symbolic value of “zero accidents” with its practical applicability, aiming to outline the essential conditions for replication, long-term success, and sustainability.

5.1. Differences Between the Zero Accident Vision and Zero Accident Culture

According to Abebe et al. [13], the ZAV can be understood as a dual concept: on the one hand, a socio-technical strategy aimed at preserving human integrity by focusing on the prevention of severe and fatal injuries; and on the other, a normative framework that aligns safety measures with the Deming PDCA cycle. This dual nature positions ZAV as the means that guides organizational action toward measurable outcomes. In contrast, as noted by Zwetsloot et al. [15], the ZAC represents the evolutionary step beyond ZAV, as it builds on trust in the system, visible leadership, and socio-technical innovation that embeds safety within human values and corporate strategy. In this sense, safety excellence culture is conceptually aligned with ZAC, but it is ZAV that provides the structure and pathway to achieve it.

Despite its innovative appeal, ZAV has been criticized for potential unintended consequences. Critics argue that measuring safety primarily through the absence of fatalities or serious injuries can encourage under-reporting of incidents or create unrealistic expectations [46,47]. As Elvik [48] demonstrated in Sweden and Norway, safety policies aligned with Vision Zero sometimes showed inefficiency in actual outcomes. Rosencrantz et al. [14] further noted that while ZAV provides directional and complete precision, it lacks temporal precision, making evaluation ambiguous. Moreover, when “zero” is treated as a rigid goal rather than a vision, it risks becoming self-defeating: employees may perceive it as punitive or unattainable, undermining motivation [49]. These critiques highlight the importance of interpreting ZAV not as a fixed metric but as a generative orientation toward continuous improvement and resilience.

5.2. Near-Miss Reporting as a Proactive Contribution to ZAV

A generative safety culture, as envisioned in the transition from ZAV to ZAC, relies on mechanisms that go beyond accident outcomes and instead encourage continuous organizational learning. Within this framework, the reporting and analysis of near misses emerge as a vital element, since they bridge the aspirational goal of zero accidents with the cultural capacity to anticipate and prevent harm before it occurs.

Zhang et al. [50] demonstrated that attitude and cognition are mechanisms directly related to safety culture and strongly influence safety behavior. This implies that near-miss reporting is sustained only when organizational and human values are aligned, creating trust and coherence that motivate proactive behavior. When this alignment is absent, reporting systems often remain underutilized, leaving organizations blind to early warnings that precede serious incidents. In this sense, the practice of reporting near misses becomes not merely a technical procedure but a cultural manifestation of a proactive and generative approach to safety, reinforcing the transformative intent of ZAV.

Empirical evidence from high-risk industries confirms this role. A study in the Indonesian petrochemical sector demonstrated that near-miss reporting maturity is a reliable indicator of overall safety culture development, strengthening both hazard anticipation and organizational learning [51]. Similarly, in the oil and gas sector, Franceschini et al. [35] describe the “Safety Pact” implemented at Kuwait Petroleum Italia, where systematic near-miss reporting created measurable reductions in serious incidents. These cases show that near-miss reporting is not only a leading indicator but also a practical mechanism that anchors ZAV in real-world organizational contexts.

Cram et al. [52] further illustrate this point through the Unsafe Act/Unsafe Condition (UAUC) model, rooted in Heinrich’s accident triangle, which highlights the importance of capturing the frequent, lower-level events that precede major incidents. Their work shows that high-volume reporting, supported by a no-blame policy and, critically, by the trust fostered through leadership and management commitment, gradually convinced managers of its value and demonstrated measurable reductions in Total Recordable Incident Rates. This evidence underscores that near-miss reporting functions as a leading indicator of safety performance. More importantly, it reflects how cultural transformation, driven by trust and leadership engagement, enables reporting to flourish, thereby operationalizing ZAV into a living ZAC.

5.3. Safety Excellence as a Corporate Strategy

Safety excellence must be understood not as an operational add-on, but as a core strategic pillar of the organization. As emphasized by Galloway [53], corporate strategy involves calculated trade-offs and incremental value creation, where integrating safety minimizes loss from incidents while enhancing the company’s reputation as a reliable partner. Embedding safety into both short- and long-term business goals ensures that prevention plans are directly aligned with business objectives rather than treated as compliance checklists; therefore, according to Misan et al. [54], safety becomes a critical component of an organization’s performance.

In this context, safety culture represents the way organizational values shape risk management behaviors. According to Ajmal et al. [55], influencing and measuring safe behavior requires a deep understanding of the organizational “cultural substrate.” Effective transformation demands long-term planning, dedicated resources, and active oversight from leadership [56]. The convergence of corporate strategy, safety culture, and leadership is critical to ensure that safety excellence becomes a defining trait of the organization, not just a temporary goal. This alignment enables coherent decision-making across all levels, executive, administrative, and operational and reinforces shared responsibility for risk mitigation.

From the industrial safety perspective, this strategic approach provides the structural framework needed to develop effective prevention plans. It encourages proactive engagement across organizational levels and improves the identification, assessment, and control of occupational risks. As noted by Jilcha [57], workplace accidents are often rooted in cultural norms and behaviors. Therefore, achieving Zero Accident Vision requires cultural and intentional transformation where safety becomes a personal commitment, motivated by the genuine awareness of potential harm.

5.4. Values, Goals, and Strategic Realism

The foundation of a safety culture capable of achieving the Zero Accident Vision lies in clearly defined and consistently upheld organizational and personal [58] values, rooted at the executive level and disseminated throughout the company structure. As noted by Mathis [59] and Abdul [60], strategic realism is only possible when top leadership, not just management or supervisors, assumes non-negotiable responsibility for safety excellence.

Incorporating safety as a core value requires alignment between stated principles and daily operational behavior. This consistency, described by Sharman [61] as “doing what we say,” transforms safety from a rhetorical statement into a lived standard. When leadership visibly upholds a coherent set of values, employees are statistically more likely by as much as 40% to engage in new safety initiatives [61]. However, aspirational goals like “zero accidents” must be grounded in strategic realism to avoid disengagement or skepticism. Vague or unattainable objectives may inadvertently encourage risk-taking or erode trust in leadership [31,34,37]. Therefore, safety goals must be specific, measurable, and realistically achievable, avoiding both triviality and idealistic overreach.

Effective implementation depends on active and sustained involvement across all organizational levels. Executives must establish a strategic vision, managers must ensure their integration into planning and operations, and supervisors must lead by example in daily practice [61]. When each goal is well-designed and meaningfully reinforced, it strengthens positive behavior and embeds a long-term commitment to risk control across the organization.

5.5. Roles, Leadership, and Organizational Commitment

Within the pillar of roles, leadership, and organizational commitment, it is essential that top management clearly define expectations and responsibilities across all levels of the company. Employees’ perception of safety is often shaped by the behavior of their immediate supervisors [61], making mid-level and frontline leadership crucial for cultural consistency. When executives demonstrate visible and concrete commitment through informed decision-making, appropriate resource allocation, and on-site presence, this engagement cascades downward, fostering alignment among middle managers and supervisors [62]. However, a disconnect between executive messaging and actual field practices undermines credibility and weakens the safety culture. Due to relational dynamics [63], workers tend to model the behavior of both formal and informal leaders, so inconsistency at the top often leads to disengagement at the base [64].

The effectiveness of safety outcomes is deeply influenced by organizational and human factors, including staff training, job design, and especially the active involvement of leadership in planning and supervising preventive measures [65]. Distant or disengaged leadership cannot lead by example, nor can it sustain any improvement in a safety management system [66]. Conversely, when managers participate in designing, implementing, and refining safety controls, they model accountability and foster continuous improvement.

Furthermore, encouraging meaningful participation from all personnel strengthens ownership and facilitates early risk detection and collaborative problem-solving [61]. Trust, credibility, and professional competence, values that organizations must intentionally cultivate, are the foundation for leadership that inspires rather than imposes. Leadership commitment is the driving force behind a sustainable Zero Accident culture. When rooted in authentic relationships and organizational values, this commitment transforms safety from a formal obligation into a shared, essential practice. In such environments, safety leadership becomes a collaborative journey, where every decision reinforces the idea that protecting lives and ensuring productivity are inseparable goals [67].

5.6. Measurement and Performance Assessment

Accurate performance measurement is fundamental for real progress toward the Zero Accident Vision. As emphasized by Franceschini et al. [35], while lagging indicators (such as accident rates) offer insight into past outcomes, only leading indicators, such as the quantity and quality of preventive actions, can effectively anticipate and mitigate future risks. Echoing Lord Kelvin’s principle that “inaccurate measurements of the right thing are better than precise measurements of the wrong thing,” the authors argue that safety efforts should prioritize complex yet meaningful metrics over those that are simply easy to quantify. Importantly, safety performance is shaped by organizational culture. Outcomes are embedded in the way an organization operates, “how we do things here”, and ignoring this cultural context when assessing performance risks undermines the validity of any metric [68]. Balanced proactive and reactive indicators deliver more accurate safety evaluations [69]. Measuring work motivation and management commitment enhances evaluations, mediating OHS impact and predicting safety performance [70].

A robust assessment model incorporates continuous improvement cycles, supported by employee and contractor participation through surveys, focus groups, and expert reviews [71]. These processes must be followed by action plans that are regularly reviewed and refined [72]. Establishing a clear baseline at the outset and monitoring it over a period of three to seven years provides a reliable frame of reference for tracking progress and validating the impact of interventions, highlights transparency in these processes, combined with the involvement of all key stakeholders, strengthens trust and builds collective commitment to the Zero Accident goal. In addition, effective data collection requires trained personnel with strong communication skills and the capacity to handle constructive feedback about processes and behavior [2].

Setting clear, time-bound, and measurable targets, both short- and medium-term and ensuring that organizational leaders take ownership of these goals, enhances the strategic framework for resource allocation and individual accountability [57]. Only by integrating leading and lagging metrics in a suggested 80:20 ratio [73] within a culture of continuous improvement and committed leadership can performance evaluation drive safety toward excellence.

5.7. Conceptual Clarity and Consistency of Criteria

Achieving a Zero Accident culture requires a shared conceptual foundation that unifies criteria and eliminates ambiguity across all organizational levels, making implementation easier, especially when tools as employees’ safety voice, referred to by Curcuruto [74] are consistently encouraged. As emphasized by Hethmon [37], any serious effort to review or implement the concept of “zero harm” must begin with a common understanding of its underlying principles. When each tier of the organization, from top executives to frontline workers, operates with differing definitions of safety or the Zero Accident Vision, confusion arises, hindering collaboration and the effective execution of preventive measures.

The key next step is to clearly identify high-risk hazards and ensure collective awareness of them throughout the organization. This process of creating a “shared vision,” as described by van der Sluis [75], enables open discussion of critical threats and prioritization strategies. It also avoids the creation of new or conflicting concepts that fragment understanding and instead leverages existing risk management frameworks. Moreover, conceptual clarity strengthens safety culture by establishing a common language that facilitates risk communication and the design of coherent operational controls. A unified vocabulary not only improves coordination but also promotes transparency and mutual accountability in day-to-day safety practices.

The effectiveness of unified safety criteria depends on continuous communication and on leadership as a collective behavioral model. When executives adopt and consistently use shared terminology related to safety and the Zero Accident Vision, they send a clear signal to middle managers and operational staff. This alignment reinforces discipline, coordinated action and fosters collaboration toward a common goal. Only through this conceptual infrastructure, supported by leadership that “speaks the same safety language”, and the safety voice as a communication tool, can a sustainable safety culture be built. Such clarity works as the foundation for long-term commitment to the Zero Accident Vision and enables organizations to navigate complexity with consistency and focus.

5.8. Technical Competence of Personnel

Technical competence in critical OHS roles is a foundational pillar for advancing toward the Zero Accident Vision. As highlighted by Chandler et al. [27], personnel in these positions must be proficient in identifying operational hazards and understanding essential control barriers. This competence enables them to detect unsafe conditions, halt processes when procedures cannot be followed, and escalate situations that exceed operational limits, achieving a positive effect in reducing injuries [76]. The interplay between human and organizational factors reinforces the need for continuous training and upskilling. Individual and collective competencies become a knowledge asset, allowing organizations to leverage experience and prevent inevitable errors through structured workgroups and effective communication channels [77]. In this matter, communities of practice can act as a practical extension of these assets. As Kothari et al. [78] remark, they provide a structured yet flexible environment for peer-to-peer learning, knowledge sharing, and collaborative problem-solving, enabling organizations to embed safety values into daily practice while strengthening both technical competence and proactive behavior.

Safety education should extend beyond frontline personnel to include those responsible for developing policies, procedures, and strategic decisions. Psychologically safe learning environments strengthen motivation, enabling competency growth and reinforcing proactive organizational safety culture [79]. When all levels of the organization, from executives to supervisors, understand legal requirements and internal safety expectations, a culture emerges where technical insight drives both compliance and continuous improvement, creating a solid safety awareness [80]. Technical competence, in this context, includes regulatory knowledge and the ability to align daily practices with the company’s overarching safety strategy.

Leadership plays a critical role in strengthening these competencies. Supervisors and middle managers, as role models, must display discretionary effort in safety-related activities, encourage their teams, and reinforce the value of excellence in every interaction. When top management demonstrates active commitment through training investments, resource allocation, recognition of safety achievements and modeling the behavior expected in others, they establish a virtuous cycle in which a rigorous attitude toward incidents becomes part of the organization’s cultural norm. Just culture and trust enable error reporting, strengthening organizational learning and essential safety competencies development [81].

5.9. Implications for Practice

The findings of this review reveal practical implications for high-risk industries pursuing the Zero Accident Vision. For safety to transcend operational boundaries and become an integral link in the value chain, strong executive leadership is essential. This requires a long-term strategic commitment that involves every level of the organization. As highlighted by Galloway [53], when top management publicly assumes responsibility for safety and fosters consultation and collaboration, the alignment between corporate goals and safety practices is significantly reinforced, a claim supported by empirical evidence.

Another critical aspect involves clarifying the three core elements of role management: roles, responsibilities, and results. As Mathis [59] explains, establishing these clearly forms the basis for genuine accountability. Each actor, from executives to operators, must understand their specific function and the indicators by which their performance will be measured. This clarity helps prevent overlaps and gaps that often lead to confusion or delays in decision-making.

The adoption of both reactive and proactive safety indicators, with rates as referred above and developed in collaboration with frontline workers and supervisors, allows organizations to assess whether interventions are producing the intended outcomes in real time. For example, in an Italian refinery, the integration of safety inspection metrics led to a 30% reduction in incidents within a single year [35]. In coal mines in Vietnam, early warning systems based on field observations were used to prevent critical failures before they occurred. In construction projects managed by Shell, safety was embedded as a business strategy, with values and safety goals integrated across every phase of the project lifecycle. Their model included compliance indicators, integrated audits, and periodic executive reviews. This structure enabled the organization to maintain a zero-injury performance record even in complex technical environments [82].

Translating these findings into practice requires a holistic framework that connects leadership, culture, and performance in high-risk environments. This review suggests five interrelated pillars that have demonstrated tangible outcomes in the literature. First, strategic safety planning must align the organization’s safety vision, mission, and values with long-term corporate planning and include adequate risk forecasting and resource allocation [53]. Second, visible leadership is essential, as the presence and credibility of top management significantly influence employee participation in safety initiatives [28]. Third, developing safe behaviors and technical competencies requires continuous training and open communication channels, leveraging the influence of informal leaders to maximize learning outcomes [57]. Fourth, systematic methodologies for hazard identification and control, alongside regular reviews, are important for maintaining risk within acceptable limits. Lastly, performance measurement and monitoring, supported by internal and external audits, sustain excellence by enabling timely adjustments and transparent evaluations [83].

The proposed five pillars also align structurally with the ISO 45001:2018 framework and the PDCA cycle. Strategic planning reflects the Plan stage, leadership and safe behaviors represent the Do, systematic hazard control and technical competencies correspond to the Check, and performance monitoring drives the Act toward continuous improvement. This integration emphasizes that ZAV and ZAC are not abstract ideals but can be operationalized within a recognized OHS management system, while also extending beyond it by explicitly addressing cultural transformation in high-risk industries. In this regard, communities of practice emerge as a transversal mechanism across the five pillars, enabling peer-to-peer learning, the diffusion of tacit knowledge, and collective ownership of safety. By bridging strategy and daily practice, they reinforce ZAC as a living, adaptive process.

5.10. Integration of the Five Pillars into OHS Management Systems

The proposal of five pillars that connect the key elements for developing the Zero Accident Vision requires not only that these pillars are interrelated, but also that they be embedded within the organization’s OSH management system, which itself must be part of the corporate strategy. To achieve this effectively, structured management systems such as ISO 45001:2018 are applied. This standard provides a systematic framework for planning occupational health and safety risk management, which aligns with the pillar of strategic safety planning, as it significantly reduces the severity and frequency of incidents and accidents through its integrated approach and emphasis on the Deming cycle that drives continual improvement [84]. This strategic perspective ensures that safety is not treated as an isolated program, but as a central component of organizational strategy.

Another key element of ISO 45001 is the second pillar, visible leadership. As Hesham et al. [84] emphasize, the standard reinforces leadership commitment and worker participation by embedding them in organizational decision-making processes. This integration strengthens the safety culture, as top management assumes an active and exemplary role, consistently demonstrating through both actions and decisions that safety is a fundamental and non-negotiable value.

The third pillar, safe behaviors and technical competencies, is supported within ISO 45001:2018 by recognizing competence, continuous training, and managerial support as essential enablers. A culture of safety excellence and the pursuit of the Zero Accident Vision can only be sustained if continuous investment is made in training and skills development, thereby reinforcing both the technical expertise of workers and their ability to make safe decisions in practice [84].

The fourth pillar, systematic hazard identification and control, is expressed in the standard through risk management, which constitutes its foundation. Occupational safety planning, hazard identification, and risk assessment exert a decisive influence on safety culture, making focused efforts in these areas essential for achieving results [84]. This approach translates into a preventive and proactive practice that goes beyond regulatory compliance, aiming instead to anticipate risks and adapt to dynamic operating environments.

Finally, the fifth pillar is reflected in the performance measurement and monitoring mechanisms required by ISO 45001. Continuous monitoring, audits, and performance evaluation ensure accountability and support the learning cycle embedded within OHS management systems [84]. This ongoing process of evaluation and feedback is what enables the transformation of the Zero Accident Vision into a living organizational culture, rooted in continual improvement and collective learning.

Beyond aligning with the ISO 45001:2018 framework, the proposed five pillars extend its scope by addressing the specific challenges of high-risk industries and incorporating sustainability requirements into safety management. As Hesham et al. [84] observe, the adoption of ISO 45001 not only reduces incident frequency and severity but also contributes to regulatory compliance, improved operational efficiency, and resource conservation. When embedded into corporate strategy, these pillars expand the standard’s preventive orientation by linking occupational safety with environmental sustainability and long-term business resilience, thereby transforming the Zero Accident Vision into a broader and more robust Zero Accident Culture.

5.11. Limitations and Future Work

This review has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. First, the body of literature on the Zero Accident Vision is largely dominated by theoretical explorations rather than robust empirical evaluations. Many studies propose conceptual frameworks and aspirational models without providing strong evidence on real-world implementation or outcome indicators. As a result, it remains difficult to draw firm conclusions about which strategies consistently lead to measurable improvements in practice.

Second, notable homogeneity characterizes the strategic models analyzed. Most are grounded in principles developed in high-income countries and are subsequently replicated in developing contexts with minimal adaptation. This uniformity may reduce effectiveness, as cultural, regulatory, and resource-related differences can significantly influence the success of safety strategies across diverse environments.

A third limitation concerns the availability of research. Several promising studies remained inaccessible due to paywalls or unpublished formats, limiting access to their full methodologies, raw data, and detailed results. This “hidden archive” bias may skew the review toward more readily available publications, which are not necessarily the most rigorous. It also highlights the need for broader open-access dissemination of occupational safety research.

Finally, while there is a growing body of literature on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation in occupational safety and health, much of it focuses on surface-level enhancements, such as automated data collection or predictive maintenance dashboards, rather than transformative changes to organizational culture or decision-making processes. Although AI holds potential to optimize specific tasks, its contribution to deep, sustainable improvements in safety performance remains underexplored and warrants further investigation.

6. Conclusions

This review demonstrates that achieving a Zero Accident goal in high-risk industries requires a comprehensive strategic approach, in which safety is no longer treated as a peripheral operational concern but becomes embedded at the core of the organizational culture. The analysis identifies critical elements, such as committed executive leadership, clearly defined corporate values, structured roles and responsibilities, technical competence of personnel, and continuous improvement cycles that must align to generate a competitive advantage and safeguard lives in complex operational environments. The integration of both reactive and proactive indicators, along with systematic audits and real-time monitoring, enables organizations to assess the effectiveness of safety measures and adjust strategies proactively, thereby ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Zero Accident Vision.

This scoping review makes a novel contribution by systematically linking the ZAV/ZAC literature with the operational realities of high-risk industries. Unlike previous works, it structures five interrelated pillars that translate the aspirational vision of zero accidents into an actionable framework aligned with ISO 45001 and enriched by cultural dimensions often overlooked. By benchmarking public and private studies, it demonstrates that global frameworks and sector-specific evidence are complementary, bridging policy with practice. The findings suggest that industries operating under high hazard exposure can move beyond compliance, embedding safety as a strategic and cultural driver of excellence. This represents a shift in practice: from seeing zero accidents as an abstract goal to operationalizing it as a continuous process of organizational learning, resilience, and leadership commitment.