A comparative study was conducted to compare the accident cause analysis methods of Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and 24Model. A major accident - Xinjia Hotel collapse accident was selected as the research object, the causes of the accident were reanalysed and accident prevention countermeasures were designed based on 24Model and FTA respectively, and the systematic characteristics of 24Model were summarized. The research shows that both 24Model and FTA can carry out risk assessment, accident cause analysis and preventive countermeasure design based on their own rules. Different from FTA, 24Model has static and dynamic structures of specific forms, the definition of causes and factors in the model is more comprehensive and the analysis method is more hierarchical and normative. 24Model can analyse the deep-level cultural and system causes, but the analysis process does not use quantitative methods, only use qualitative methods. 24Model has 8 systematic characteristics, such as integrity, hierarchy and dynamics.

A strong safety culture is essential for managing human factors in complex systems and constitutes a strategic resource for supporting the sustainable operation of organizations. However, conventional approaches remain limited by unclear conceptual boundaries and a lack of mechanisms linking safety culture with other organizational safety elements. To address these gaps, this study develops a sustainable safety culture construction method grounded in accident causation theory. Using the 24Model, we establish a concise “culture–system–ability–acts” framework that operationalizes the pathways through which safety culture shapes organizational safety performance. The method integrates four components: conceptual clarification of safety culture, quantitative assessment, factor identification based on the 24Model, and Bayesian network analysis to quantify interdependencies among culture, systems, ability, and acts. Empirical evidence from coal mining enterprises shows that safety culture influences safety performance indirectly by shaping system implementation quality, workers’ safety ability, and safety-related actions. Enhancing “demand of safety training” substantially mitigated system deficiencies related to ineffective implementation of procedures, failure in enforcing procedures, lack of qualifications, and insufficient supervision. Improved training also strengthened workers’ knowledge of accident cases, consequences of violations, and technical standards, thereby reducing competence-related gaps and promoting more consistent safety supervision behaviors. Sensitivity analysis highlights the importance of reinforcing “safety responsibilities of line departments” and improving the dissemination of safety knowledge, particularly accident case knowledge. Overall, the findings empirically validate the dynamic “culture–system–ability–acts” transmission mechanism of the 24Model and provide a structured, quantitative pathway for advancing sustainable safety culture development.