Blog

Conventional wisdom holds that safety projects are cost centers rather than value-generating investments, leading many decision-makers to assume they lack a positive return on investment (ROI). This belief is a major reason why companies struggle to justify safety projects. But what if the problem isn’t the investment itself, but rather the way it’s being evaluated?

Another common assumption is that every project evaluation must include a ‘do nothing’ option. While this approach might make sense in some contexts, it often leads to flawed comparisons in safety investments. If the baseline for comparison is an unsafe or inefficient status quo, the value of the investment will be distorted.

We take a different view: every decision should generate a positive return, but that requires evaluating it against the optimized base case—the best achievable outcome with minimal additional investment—rather than an unacceptable status quo. By failing to apply this principle, safety professionals, operations leaders, and finance teams risk undervaluing critical investments and making flawed financial justifications.

What Is the Optimized Base Case?

The optimized base case is the best possible operational outcome achievable with minimal additional investment, while also aligning with our core values, including keeping people safe and adhering to legal requirements. It represents the highest level of efficiency, safety, and reliability we can attain using existing resources—before committing to major spending. This concept serves as the proper benchmark for evaluating new investments because it prevents us from justifying new expenditures based on an artificially poor status quo.

Too often, decision-makers fall into the trap of comparing a potential investment against a neglected, inefficient, or unsafe current state, rather than against the best possible version of that state. This leads to either over- or under-investing in solutions that fail to address the real problem.

Applying the Optimized Base Case to Safety Investments

Example 1: Replacing a Hazardous Work Platform

A company identifies that an elevated work platform is structurally compromised and unsafe. The finance team hesitates to approve a new platform because they compare its cost to the cost of continuing with the existing unsafe structure. However, the optimized base case dictates that the true baseline is the cost of making the existing platform safe or finding a way to do the work safely without using the platform. One alternative for safely completing the work is renting an aerial lift as needed. The next step is to compare the cost of repairing or replacing the platform with the cost of renting the aerial lift on an ongoing basis. If leasing or purchasing an aerial lift proves more cost-effective than renting each time, that option must also be considered in defining the optimized base case.  But under no circumstances should we ever compare the cost of any alternatives against the option to have employees work on an unsafe platform, because that goes against our values.

Example 2: Justifying Road Repairs for Safety

A manufacturing plant’s main access road is filled with potholes, creating hazards for incoming and outgoing truck traffic. Truck drivers report frequent near-misses, but the finance team questions the return on investment of spending $50,000 on reconstruction. However, applying the optimized base case reveals that doing nothing is not an option, as unsafe conditions cannot be tolerated. The true baseline comparison is between the long-term cost of continuously patching potholes versus investing in a permanent solution. In this case, an analysis shows that frequent patching results in higher costs over time than a one-time reconstruction.

Example 3: Equipment Replacement vs. Proper Maintenance

A manufacturing site requests funding for a new machine, citing excessive downtime on their current unit. Upon investigation, it turns out the machine has been poorly maintained—lack of lubrication, ignored service intervals, and improper use. The optimized base case requires first ensuring the machine is maintained correctly. If downtime persists despite proper upkeep, then a replacement becomes justifiable. Otherwise, buying a new machine simply perpetuates a cycle of neglect.

How Leaders Can Apply This Concept

For safety professionals, operations leaders, and finance decision-makers, understanding and enforcing the optimized base case approach can lead to better financial decisions and improved safety outcomes. Here’s how to integrate this mindset:

1. Challenge the Default Baseline

2. Define the Minimum Standard of Compliance

3. Analyze Long-Term Costs vs. Upfront Investment

Final Thoughts

The optimized base case is a critical but often overlooked principle in decision-making. Many organizations struggle to justify safety projects because they assume that ‘do nothing’ must always be considered as an alternative. However, this assumption leads to flawed comparisons and undervalued safety investments. Instead, the optimized base case must always be considered as the true alternative—ensuring that decisions are evaluated against the best achievable outcome within existing resources.

By shifting this perspective, safety professionals can better articulate the true value of their proposals, demonstrating how investments align with financial prudence and an unwavering commitment to a safe work environment. Organizations that embrace this approach can make more rational financial decisions, eliminate unjustified spending, and ensure that safety improvements are properly valued.

Further Learning

If you enjoyed this article we invite you to check out our other blog articles and subscribe to our newsletter.

If you’re serious about mitigating decision traps in your organization, check out 📖 The Hidden Traps Sabotaging Your Decisions – A practical guide to recognizing and avoiding common decision biases.

 Chris Seifert is the author of Enabling Empowerment: A Leadership Playbook for Ending Micromanagement and Empowering Decision-Makers. With over two decades of experience in transforming organizations through strategic leadership and decision-making frameworks, Chris has helped teams cut through bottlenecks, optimize capital project budgets, and build cultures of accountability. He is passionate about teaching leaders how to empower their teams to make smarter, faster decisions without sacrificing business value.