Safety as a Technology of the Self: Why Billions in Training Can't Solve a Problem That Starts in Childhood

$29.4 billion.

That's the estimated annual economic cost of workplace injuries and illnesses to the Canadian economy, covering healthcare expenses, lost income, and reduced productivity. According to Parachute and non-government research, this figure dwarfs the $11.5 billion Canadian employers pay annually in workers' compensation premiums across all provincial boards. And that's just the reportable injuries. Studies from the University of Ottawa suggest the true toll of work-related deaths alone is dramatically underreported, with thousands of fatalities among exempt workers, stress-induced suicides, and occupational diseases never making it into official statistics.

In 2023, Canadian workers' compensation boards accepted over 348,000 lost-time claims and recorded more than 1,000 workplace fatalities. The construction sector alone accounted for 32% of workplace deaths despite employing only 5% of the workforce. British Columbia has seen its traumatic injury fatality rate climb for three consecutive years. And the same injury patterns, strains, overexertion, and lower back injuries continue to dominate year after year, just as they have for decades.

The spending on prevention is substantial. Ontario employers alone invest an estimated $1,800 per employee annually in occupational health and safety measures, training, equipment, supervision, and compliance. The provincial government recently committed $400 million to expand workplace safety programs. WorkSafeBC, WSIB, and provincial regulators fund countless initiatives. CSA Group has produced occupational health and safety standards for more than 70 years.

And yet.

As someone who has worked across Canada on sites ranging from no formal safety program to world-class operations following CSA Z1000 and ISO 45001, I've observed one thing that remains stubbornly consistent: inconsistency. Even the best programs can't fully bridge the gap between what workers know and what they do. Between compliance and conviction. Between following rules because they're required and following them because you've internalized their purpose.

This isn't a training problem. It's an identity problem. And solving it requires us to think about safety not as something organizations impose, but as something individuals choose to become.

The Compliance Trap

Research published through the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information documented an important distinction that every Canadian safety professional should understand: the difference between safety compliance and safety citizenship behaviour. Compliance means following rules when observed or required. Citizenship means actively protecting yourself and others even when no one is watching, even when the rules don't specifically apply.

The research found that employees consistently show higher compliance than citizenship behaviour. They'll wear the PPE when the supervisor is present. They'll follow the lockout-tagout procedure during an audit. But citizenship, the discretionary, proactive safety actions that prevent the incidents no one anticipated, lags behind. And it's citizenship behaviour that actually predicts safety outcomes.

This gap exists because most safety programs treat workers as objects to be controlled rather than subjects capable of genuine commitment. Canadian employers with 20 or more employees are required to establish joint health and safety committees with worker representation, a structural acknowledgment that workers should participate in safety governance. But participation in committees doesn't automatically translate to participation in safety as a personal practice.

A 2022 study in the International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics concluded that "structure, processes, and strict rules alone do not guarantee successful HSE performance." What matters, the authors found, is how deeply individuals have internalized safety as part of their own identity. Rules imposed from outside generate compliance. Values adopted from within generate commitment.

What Climbers Figured Out

Consider what happened in climbing culture over the past quarter century. Twenty-five years ago, wearing a helmet while rock climbing wasn't just uncommon, it was actively uncool. The elite climbers who shaped the culture, figures like Yvon Chouinard, climbed bareheaded. Helmets were seen as gear for novices, a signal that you didn't belong. The most skilled climbers in the world modeled helmetless ascents, and the community followed.

Today, that culture has completely reversed. As Dan Middleton of the British Mountaineering Council observed, "It's now cool to wear a helmet, cool to protect yourself, cool to value your longevity in the sport." The transformation happened through multiple reinforcing mechanisms: equipment became lighter and more comfortable, elite athletes began adopting helmets and talking about why, and the narrative shifted from viewing protection as a sign of incompetence to viewing it as a marker of professionalism. Climbers who had been in the sport for decades saw enough close calls, their own and others', to change their minds publicly. The culture followed.

Professional cycling underwent a similar transformation. In 1991, riders at the Paris-Nice race actually staged a strike against a proposed helmet mandate; they saw the requirement as an insult to their skill and autonomy. By 2003, after the death of Andrei Kivilev from a head injury during competition, professional cycling made helmets mandatory. Today, no serious cyclist would consider riding without one, and the debate has shifted entirely from whether to wear helmets to which helmet offers the best protection.

What changed wasn't the risk level. Climbing and cycling are no more dangerous today than they were in 1990. What changed was the meaning attached to protective behaviour. Helmets stopped being symbols of weakness and became symbols of competence, longevity, and respect for the craft. Safety became part of the athlete's identity rather than a constraint imposed from outside.

Technologies of the Self

The French philosopher Michel Foucault spent the final years of his career exploring what he called "technologies of the self”, the practices through which individuals transform themselves, constituting themselves as ethical subjects. In his 1982 lectures at the University of Vermont, Foucault traced the concept back to the Greek notion of epimeleia heautou, or "care of the self." This wasn't narcissism or self-indulgence. It was a rigorous practice of self-formation, a way of turning external demands and social expectations into internal commitments that felt genuinely one's own.

Foucault distinguished technologies of the self from technologies of power, the external systems that regulate behaviour through surveillance, punishment, and reward. Both can produce compliance. But only technologies of the self produce the kind of consistent, intrinsically motivated behaviour that persists without external enforcement. The goal, in Foucault's framework, is to move from rules imposed from outside to rules owned as expressions of who you are.

Modern psychology has developed its own frameworks for understanding this process. Self-Determination Theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, describes four levels of behavioural regulation that map remarkably well onto safety culture development. At the lowest level is external regulation, doing something because you'll be punished if you don't. Then comes introjection, doing it because you'll feel guilty otherwise. Then identification, doing it because you recognize its importance. And finally integration, doing it because it has become part of who you are, congruent with your deepest values and sense of self.

Most Canadian safety programs operate at the external regulation level. They rely on rules, surveillance, and consequences. Some achieve introjection; workers feel bad when they cut corners. Very few reach identification, and almost none achieve integration. Yet it's integration that predicts consistent protective behaviour regardless of context or oversight. It's integration that closes the gap between safety compliance and safety citizenship.

The Identity-Value Connection

Elliot Berkman's Identity-Value Model of self-regulation provides the mechanism. Berkman's research, published in Psychological Inquiry, demonstrates that behaviours perceived as identity-relevant have greater subjective value and are therefore more likely to be enacted consistently. When a behaviour becomes part of how you see yourself, part of your story about who you are, it shifts from being an effortful choice to being a natural expression of self.

This explains why climbers who identify as "professionals" wear helmets while those who see themselves as "casual weekend warriors" might not. It explains why workers who identify as "experienced hands" might skip safety procedures they see as meant for novices. Identity shapes perception of what's appropriate, and perception shapes behaviour.

The inverse is also true: valuing yourself is a precondition for consistently protecting yourself. A systematic review published in MDPI Behavioural Sciences examined the relationship between self-esteem and risk behaviour in adolescents. The findings were unambiguous: high self-esteem serves as a consistent protective factor against health-compromising behaviours. People who value themselves protect themselves. People who don't may take risks not despite understanding the danger, but because they don't fully believe they're worth protecting.

Research in BMC Psychology reinforced this connection, finding that life-skills programs strengthening self-esteem produced measurable improvements in risk behaviour outcomes. The mechanism isn't complicated: when you believe your life has value, you act to protect it. When that belief is shaky, protective behaviour becomes negotiable.

The Power of Social Proof

Individual identity doesn't develop in isolation. Robert Cialdini's research on social proof demonstrates that people copy others' actions, particularly in ambiguous situations where the "correct" behaviour isn't clear. This is sometimes called informational social influence; we look to others to understand what's normal, appropriate, and expected. Research on social movements suggests that when roughly 25% of a group adopts a new behaviour, a tipping point can be reached where the new norm becomes self-sustaining.

This has profound implications for safety culture. If the team culture treats safety as an annoyance to be minimized, that's what individuals will internalize, regardless of what the official policy says. If the culture treats safety as a marker of competence and professionalism, individuals will internalize that instead. Cross-cultural research in behavioural economics has found that collectivist cultures show stronger conformity to social proof than individualist ones, which has interesting implications for Canadian workplaces that increasingly draw from diverse cultural backgrounds.

The similarity effect matters too. People are more likely to mimic the behaviour of others they perceive as similar to themselves. This is why peer influence often matters more than management directives, and why changing the behaviour of respected informal leaders within a work group can cascade through the entire team. When experienced workers model safety commitment rather than safety shortcuts, newer workers follow.

Starting Earlier Than We Think

If identity and self-worth are the foundations of consistent protective behaviour, and if social proof shapes how we understand what's normal, then the logical conclusion is uncomfortable: by the time someone arrives at a Canadian worksite for their first day, the most important determinants of their safety behaviour may already be established.

Research in developmental psychology supports this. The human brain reaches 90% of its adult size by age 3, and the neural pathways laid down during early childhood shape patterns of behaviour that persist throughout life. Early childhood education research suggests that children can learn simple safety rules before they're able to understand the reasons behind them, developing what educators call "positive habits" that become automatic responses.

Consider the four-year-old who reminds her parents to "buckle up" every time they get in the car. She doesn't understand the physics of crashes or the statistics on seatbelt effectiveness. But she has internalized the behaviour as simply what you do. The habit precedes the understanding, and by the time understanding arrives, the habit is already deeply rooted. Research on observational learning indicates that children absorb not just behaviours but the attitudes and values behind them. They learn not only what their parents do but how their parents feel about what they do. A parent who wears safety equipment with visible resentment teaches something very different from a parent who wears it with matter-of-fact confidence.

This suggests that workplace safety training, however sophisticated, is trying to build on foundations that were laid years or decades earlier. Programs that only address the workplace miss the developmental window where fundamental orientations toward self-protection are formed.

Building Safety Identity in Adults

None of this means workplace safety programs are hopeless. Adults can develop new identity commitments, and research in organizational psychology points toward conditions that support internalization rather than mere compliance.

Autonomy support matters. When safety practices are presented as choices made by competent professionals rather than rules imposed by management, workers are more likely to internalize them. This doesn't mean making safety optional; it means framing safety as something skilled workers choose because they understand its value, not something they're forced to do because someone is watching. The language of capability ("here's how professionals handle this") differs importantly from the language of control ("you must do this or face consequences").

Competence development creates identity investment. When safety knowledge becomes a marker of expertise, something that distinguishes skilled professionals from novices, workers incorporate it into their professional identity. The goal is for workers to think of themselves as the kind of people who work safely, not as people who follow safety rules. Training that emphasizes understanding rather than compliance, that explains not just what to do but why and how, supports this kind of identity development.

Relatedness, connection to others who share the same values, provides social reinforcement for individual commitment. When safety becomes part of team identity, individual commitment becomes socially sustained. This is why changing team culture often produces better results than trying to change individual behaviour. And it's why organizations that genuinely value worker wellbeing, not just productivity and liability protection, produce different safety outcomes than those where the concern is transparently instrumental.

Beyond Programs

The $29.4 billion annual cost of workplace injuries in Canada represents an enormous failure of collective investment. It's not that we lack knowledge of safe practices; we have detailed CSA standards, comprehensive regulations through OHSA and WSIB, and decades of accumulated expertise. It's not that we lack resources; Canadian employers invest billions in training, equipment, and compliance. What we lack is a society where consistent self-protection is internalized as a fundamental expression of self-worth and professional identity.

Building that society requires thinking beyond workplace programs to developmental interventions that shape identity and values from early childhood. It requires communities where safety is modelled consistently by respected figures and treated as normal rather than exceptional. It requires shifting the cultural meaning of protective behaviour from constraint to competence, from weakness to wisdom.

This isn't something any single organization can achieve alone. But it is something every organization can contribute to, by how they train, by what they model, by which behaviours they treat as markers of skill and professionalism, by how genuinely they communicate respect for workers' lives and wellbeing. Every interaction either reinforces the message that safety is something done to workers or supports the development of workers who see safety as something they do for themselves.

At Aeria Solutions, this understanding shapes how we approach our 2026 field preparedness programs for new entrants and young operators. We're not just teaching procedures and regulations. We're working to help individuals develop a relationship with safety that's rooted in self-worth, understanding that protecting themselves isn't just a job requirement, but an expression of their own value. Participating in safety programs isn't just compliance with an organizational demand, but an extension of their own demands for themselves.

The best operators aren't just compliant. They're committed. And that commitment comes from the inside out.

---

Aeria Solutions develops safety management systems, training programs, and operational frameworks that treat safety as a professional competency rather than a compliance burden. We work with organizations across Canada to build the kind of safety culture that persists, not because someone is watching, but because it's who your people have become.