For more than a century they hung in factories and on construction sites: short, forceful safety slogans like “Stay alert, don’t get hurt.” But do they still fit how companies think about safety today? According to Dave Johnson, editor-in-chief of the US trade magazine ISHN from 1980 to 2020 and now editor-at-large, only under certain conditions. In an opinion piece, he argues that the classic slogan sits poorly with modern, systems-based safety thinking.
From personal blame to systems thinking
Johnson describes how American railroads adopted the slogan “safety first” in 1873 to reassure the public. Around 1900, an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 American workers died each year in industrial accidents. According to Johnson, slogans served as a memory aid to keep workers alert, thereby placing responsibility on the worker. That emphasis gained a scientific veneer in 1931 through H.W. Heinrich, who claimed that 88 percent of accidents were caused by workers’ unsafe acts.
Against this, Johnson sets today’s “Safety 2.0” approach, based on Human and Organizational Performance (HOP): not the individual who makes a mistake, but the system, working conditions and leadership take center stage. He asks where the catchy slogans for supervisors and management were: in his view, they were never the target of slogans and were never held to them either.
Not a case for scrapping every slogan
The piece is an opinion contribution from an experienced observer of the field, not a research report. Johnson also cites figures: the first official count, in 1913, found roughly 23,000 fatal workplace accidents; in 2024 there were 5,070. He draws no causal link between slogans and that decline. His conclusion is nuanced: in his view, there is no reason to remove every safety slogan. Backed by visible safety values and actions from leadership, they can be a positive reminder, but they should not be aimed solely at the worker.
Context
Heinrich’s widely cited 88-percent figure has been under fire for years. Safety expert Fred Manuele told Safety+Health Magazine in 2011 that the ratio was the assumption that has “done the most damage” to the profession, because it directs prevention efforts at the worker rather than the system in which the work takes place. Consultant Judith Erickson pointed out that Heinrich relied on accident reports written after the fact by supervisors, without investigation into underlying causes, and that his original files no longer exist, making his work impossible to verify.
Research by, among others, the US CDC/NIOSH into “safety climate” aligns with the broader point behind Johnson’s argument: how leadership prioritizes and communicates safety is linked to safety performance on the shop floor. That does not prove slogans are inherently harmful or useless, but it does underscore that they mean little without structural measures and engaged leadership.
Source: Do Safety Slogans Still Serve a Purpose?, September 30, 2026
Additionally researched: criticism of H.W. Heinrich’s accident ratio (Fred Manuele, Judith Erickson, via Safety+Health Magazine) and CDC/NIOSH research on safety climate and workplace safety.
