Research Compendium: Safety & Risk Performance indicators (lead, lag, drive, process safety + more)

This compendium covers several themes relating to safety performance indicators / risk indicators / process safety indicators.

The following topics are covered:

Indicator definitions
Leveson and Systems Engineering/Systems Safety
Frameworks, logics and other
Indicator Examples (probably what most people want to see)
Psychosocial Indicators
Caveats, limitations, advice on indicators
Relationship with Performance and Other Measures

Note:

I’ve only covered a tiny amount of the process safety field – there’s literally textbooks devoted to this topic
I haven’t repeated the Safety-II/Resilience Engineering indicators here – check out these compendiums instead:
- a) https://safety177496371.wordpress.com/2024/08/08/a-curious-compendium-of-adaptive-research-hop-safety-ii-re-hro-etc/
- b) https://safety177496371.wordpress.com/2024/09/11/research-compendium-definitions-safety-ii-resilience-engineering-hop-new-view-safety-differently/
I haven’t covered healthcare, aviation or nuclear domains (plus lots more)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is buy-me-a-coffee-3.png

Shout me a coffee

Indicator Definitions

Australian Constructors Association. Lead Indicators Safety Measurement in the Construction Industry: https://www.constructors.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Lead-Performance-Indicators-Guideline.pdf

Guo, B. H., & Yiu, T. W. (2016). Developing leading indicators to monitor the safety conditions of construction projects. Journal of management in engineering, 32(1), 04015016. https://www.academia.edu/download/41620634/Developing_Leading_Indicators_to_Monitor20160127-28594-1vzn0o5.pdf

Bayramova, A., Edwards, D. J., Roberts, C., & Rillie, I. (2023). Constructs of leading indicators: A synthesis of safety literature. Journal of safety research, 85, 469-484. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437523000531

Stacey, J. (2012). Overview of leading indicators for occupational health and safety in mining. International Council on Mining and Metals. https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/health-and-safety/2012/guidance_indicators-ohs.pdf

Swuste, P., Theunissen, J., Schmitz, P., Reniers, G., & Blokland, P. (2016). Process safety indicators, a review of literature. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 40, 162-173. https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/1d3c6e/129952_2017_12_30.pdf

Golabchi, H., Abellanosa, A. D., Lefsrud, L., Pereira, E., & Mohamed, Y. (2024). A comprehensive systematic review of safety leading indicators in construction. Safety science, 172, 106433.

Bayramova, A., Edwards, D. J., Roberts, C., & Rillie, I. (2024). Unravelling the Gordian knot of leading indicators. Safety Science, 177, 106603. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753524001930

Eaton, G. H., & Little, D. E. (2009, June). Performance Metrics-Leading Indicators Deliver Sustainable Results. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition (pp. ASSE-09). ASSE. https://aeasseincludes.assp.org/proceedings/2009/docs/612.pdf

Lofquist, E. A. (2010). The art of measuring nothing: The paradox of measuring safety in a changing civil aviation industry using traditional safety metrics. Safety science, 48(10), 1520-1529. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092575351000127X?casa_token=QS0Yf1Es4A0AAAAA:GPkpiScDHOhHwKqQYj_5boGxy-au4XdQRqfBHY24bY9o_eQ8QrtnjoF2JKhKpsM2WLVzYlYJAPzY

Wurzelbacher, S., & Jin, Y. (2011). A framework for evaluating OSH program effectiveness using leading and trailing metrics. Journal of safety research, 42(3), 199-207. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437511000491?casa_token=XcAxz-0uQB4AAAAA:hdYkAZeMGjQaiy2e1KbeqO0Ob5UlGsiMgzuTor7kHAFjH0gnMZ9a2f-8sNkIv7f9wS3f9WOVZM6f

Safety, A., & Council, C. (2005). Guidance on the Use of Positive Performance Indicators to Improve Workplace Health and Safety. Safe Work Australia, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/guidanceonuseofppis_2005_pdf.pdf

Chen, M., Chen, Y., & Ma, S. (2021). Identifying safety performance indicators for risk assessment in civil aviation. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1043, No. 3, p. 032010). IOP Publishing. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1043/3/032010/pdf

Leveson and Systems Engineering/Systems Safety

Leveson, N. (2015). A systems approach to risk management through leading safety indicators. Reliability engineering & system safety, 136, 17-34. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/108601/Leveson_A%20systems%20approach.pdf

Leveson, N. G. (2013). A Systems Thinking Approach to Leading Indicators in the Petrochemical Industry. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/102957/esd-wp-2013-01.pdf?sequence=1

Sultana, S., Andersen, B. S., & Haugen, S. (2019). Identifying safety indicators for safety performance measurement using a system engineering approach. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 128, 107-120. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2600400/Sultana.pdf?sequence=4

Frameworks, Logics and Other

HSE UK: https://books.hse.gov.uk/gempdf/hsg254.pdf

Reiman et al.: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Teemu-Reiman/publication/236597710_Leading_indicators_of_system_safety_-_Monitoring_and_driving_the_organizational_safety_potential/links/5abca96eaca27222c753edd0/Leading-indicators-of-system-safety-Monitoring-and-driving-the-organizational-safety-potential.pdf

Alruqi, W. M., & Hallowell, M. R. (2019). Critical success factors for construction safety: Review and meta-analysis of safety leading indicators. Journal of construction engineering and management, 145(3), 04019005.

RIISB. (2016). Measuring Safety Performance. https://www.rissb.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/161011_022317_Guideline-Measuring-Safety-Performance-FINAL.pdf

Haas, E. J., & Yorio, P. (2016). Exploring the state of health and safety management system performance measurement in mining organizations. Safety science, 83, 48-58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753515002969?casa_token=WVSoJ8t2suUAAAAA:LlnKQ_EBlxggcokJnDrmuMVW2UKt-L_I314tw6HYj2lrzHbo-WAXgPBVZAclgjESyM7n2QdEKf1x

Khan, F., Abunada, H., John, D., & Benmosbah, T. (2010). Development of risk‐based process safety indicators. Process Safety Progress, 29(2), 133-143. https://www.academia.edu/10904688/Development_of_risk_based_process_safety_indicators

Falahati, M., Karimi, A., Mohammadfam, I., Mazloumi, A., Reza Khanteymoori, A., & Yaseri, M. (2020). Multi-dimensional model for determining the leading performance indicators of safety management systems. Work, 67(4), 959-969. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3233/WOR-203346

Table 1. The meaning of SMART criteria and their references to other sets of criteria.

Criterion	Meaning of the criterion	Respective criteria by Kjellen (2009)	Respective criteria by Carlucci (2010)
Specific	The name of the indicator should precisely define the phenomenon under research, and should be comprehensive to all users	Indicators should be comprehended by those in charge with the responsibility of using them	Understandability and representational quality: concise and unsophisticated
Specific	The indicator should be appropriate for the measurement of effectiveness of the implementation of specific goals for a given action

Measurable	It should be possible to technically measure the indicator’s value based on a properly selected unit	Quantifiable and permitting statistical analyses	Comparability and consistency: the possibility for comparison of the indicator’s value between enterprises, and of the values measured at different times
	Data for the measurement should be identifiable, and relatively readily available	Sensitive to change in environmental or behavioural conditions
	The indicator should provide appropriate accuracy and repeatability of the measurement	Provide minimum variability when measuring the same conditions	Reliability: the indicator is fault-tolerant, and reliably measures what is to be measured; data for the measurement are available without high costs
	The indicator’s values may be used for comparisons between enterprises or organizational units

Achievable	The indicator’s values should be achievable under given conditions and in the foreseeable period of time	Cost of obtaining and using measures is consistent with the benefits	Not addressed
Achievable	The resources (human, technical, information, etc.) necessary for the collection of data for the measurement should be sufficient		Not addressed

Relevant^a	Measurement using the indicator should contribute to accomplishing the general objectives of a given system, process or action	Valid and representative of what is to be measured	Relevance: the indicator provides information which allows a proper adjustment of actions being carried out, or a proper forecast of the results of those actions in the future
	The indicator should be relevant to the operation of an enterprise or organizational unit, as well as for its users
	The results of the measurement using the indicator should be appropriate for fulfilling relevant requirements concerning documentation of the actions

Time-bound	It should be possible to determine the period in which a given value of the indicator may be achieved	Not addressed	Not addressed
Time-bound	The time for achieving a given value of the indicator may be divided into successive stages	Not addressed	Not addressed

Podgórski, D. (2015). Measuring operational performance of OSH management system–A demonstration of AHP-based selection of leading key performance indicators. Safety science, 73, 146-166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753514003063

Laine, J. (2022). Developing Process Safety Performance Indicators and Process Safety Metrics in Chemical Industry. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/783019/Laine_Jussi.pdf?sequence=2

Table 1. Summary of Existing Performance Metrics.

Existing Performance Metrics		Definition	Examples	References
Injury Rates	First Aid Rate	Number of first aid injuries per 200,000 full-time equivalent worker-hours.	–	(Huang and Hinze, 2006, U.S. Department of Labor, 2004)
	TRIR	Number of recordable incidents per 200,000 full-time equivalent worker-hours.	–	(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics., 2020, U.S. Department of Labor, 2004, U.S. Department of Labor, 2010
	DART	Number of recordable incidents that resulted in days away from work, restricted work duty, or job transfer per 200,000 full-time equivalent worker-hours.	–	(U.S. Department of Labor, 2004)
	Fatality Rate	Number of fatal work injuries per 100,000 full-time equivalent worker-hours.	–	(Raheem and Hinze, 2014, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics., 2020)
Near Miss Incident Rates		The frequency of incidents where no injury was sustained, but with a slight change in the circumstances such the injury would have been sustained.	Fallen tool but did not strike a worker, worker in excavator boom radius, worker standing on the rails of a bucket lift, etc.	(Cambraia et al., 2010, Oswald et al., 2018, Sarkar et al., 2019, Teizer and Cheng, 2015; Wu, Gibb, et al., 2010)
Safety Leading Indicators		The frequency of injury prevention activities.	Number of audits, Pre-job meetings, Drug tests, Owner involvement, Hazard and accident analysis, Incentives, etc.	(M. R. Hallowell et al., 2013, Hinze et al., 2013a, Lingard et al., 2017, Manjourides and Dennerlein, 2019)
Precursor Analysis Scores		The trends in the status of human resources as assessed through fields safety engagements on site.	Schedule pressure, Fatigue, Inexperience of worker/crew with the task, language barrier, limited safety supervision, etc.	(Alexander et al., 2017a, Alexander et al., 2017b)
Safety Climate		The status of employee perceptions on the safety management system.	Management’s commitment to safety, supervisor’s role, training, etc.	(Al-Bayati et al., 2019, Alruqi and Hallowell, 2019, Choudhry and Fang, 2008, Hon et al., 2014, Nadhim et al., 2018)

Table 4. Construction Safety Performance Metric Ratings under Evidence-based Evaluation Criteria.

Construction Safety Performance Metrics	Evidence-based Evaluation Criteria
Construction Safety Performance Metrics	Predictive	Valid	Objective
First Aid Rates	0.5	1.0	1.0
TRIR	0.0	0.0	1.0
DART	0.0	0.0	1.0
Fatality Rates	0.5	0.0	1.0
Near Miss Incident Rates	0.5	1.0	0.5
Leading Indicators	1.0	1.0	1.0
Precursor Analysis Scores	1.0	1.0	0.0
Safety Climate	1.0	1.0	0.0

Erkal, E. D. O., Hallowell, M. R., & Bhandari, S. (2023). Formal evaluation of construction safety performance metrics and a case for a balanced approach. Journal of safety research, 85, 380-390. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437523000439?casa_token=O4FHW42dgsIAAAAA:6Fo6K_eCjm7_aEzUZbdh6FU3MScPYlUaaVTIHCl18w8BciyYul95cSpN6R3m9Q7MK6v51jCf70Fq

Wang, M., Mentzer, R. A., Gao, X., Richardson, J., & Mannan, M. S. (2013). Normalization of process safety lagging metrics. Process Safety Progress, 32(4), 337-345.

Indicator Examples

Reiman et al.: Reiman et al.: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Teemu-Reiman/publication/236597710_Leading_indicators_of_system_safety_-_Monitoring_and_driving_the_organizational_safety_potential/links/5abca96eaca27222c753edd0/Leading-indicators-of-system-safety-Monitoring-and-driving-the-organizational-safety-potential.pdf

Xu et al. Safety leading indicators in construction: a systematic review. Safety Science: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10124688/7/Xu_Author%20Accepted%20Version.pdf

Xu et al. Safety leading indicators in construction: a systematic review. Safety Science: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10124688/7/Xu_Author%20Accepted%20Version.pdf

Hallowell, M. R., Hinze, J. W., Baud, K. C., & Wehle, A. (2013). Proactive construction safety control: Measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. Journal of construction engineering and management, 139(10), 04013010. https://dralavipour.com/storage/app/media/course/applied-resource/documents/12.%20proactive_construction_safety.pdf

Golabchi, H., Abellanosa, A. D., Lefsrud, L., Pereira, E., & Mohamed, Y. (2024). A comprehensive systematic review of safety leading indicators in construction. Safety science, 172, 106433.

Shaikh, A. Y., Osei‐Kyei, R., & Hardie, M. (2021). A critical analysis of safety performance indicators in construction. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(3), 547-580. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aziz-Shaikh-2/publication/343669634_A_critical_analysis_of_safety_performance_indicators_in_construction/links/5f8ae3f8458515b7cf85420c/A-critical-analysis-of-safety-performance-indicators-in-construction.pdf

Xu, J., Cheung, C., Manu, P., Ejohwomu, O., & Too, J. (2023). Implementing safety leading indicators in construction: Toward a proactive approach to safety management. Safety science, 157, 105929. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753522002685

Øien, K., Utne, I. B., Tinmannsvik, R. K., & Massaiu, S. (2011). Building safety indicators: Part 2–application, practices and results. Safety science, 49(2), 162-171.

Reiman, T., & Pietikäinen, E. (2010). Indicators of safety culture-selection and utilization of leading safety performance indicators. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/979791

Shea, T., De Cieri, H., Donohue, R., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2016). Leading indicators of occupational health and safety: An employee and workplace level validation study. Safety science, 85, 293-304.

Ranasinghe, U., Jefferies, M., Davis, P., & Pillay, M. (2020). Resilience engineering indicators and safety management: A systematic review. Safety and Health at Work, 11(2), 127-135. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791120302663

Karimi, A., Abbasi, M., Zokaei, M., & Falahati, M. (2021). Development of leading indicators for the assessment of occupational health performance using Reason’s Swiss cheese model. Journal of education and health promotion, 10(1), 158. https://journals.lww.com/jehp/_layouts/15/oaks.journals/downloadpdf.aspx?an=01679914-202110000-00149

Table 5 shows the final set of the ISSA proactive leading indicators for SHW at work.

Table 5. International Social Security Association’s (ISSA) proactive leading indicators for safety, health and wellbeing (SHW) at work.

Rule No. 1: Take leadership – demonstrate commitment
Indicator No. 1.1 Visible leadership commitment	Through visible leadership commitment and being exemplary role models, leaders demonstrate their commitment to SHW, and actively promote and support SHW improvement processes and the development of a prevention culture.
Indicator No. 1.2 Competent leadership	Committed and competent SHW leadership is essential to drive the development processes of VISION ZERO. Such leaders are intrinsically motivated to improve SHW and promote SHW as personal and organizational core values. Leaders then regard SHW as integrated parts of business processes, and support processes of continual improvement of SHW, while creating a strong prevention culture.
Rule No. 2: Identify hazards – control risks
Indicator No. 2.1 Evaluating risk management	Evaluation of the effectiveness of SHW risk management shows leadership focus and commitment to improving SHW, and stimulates active participation and influence of workers. It allows leaders and workers to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of SHW promotion measures as an integrated part of business. In addition, it allows for organizational learning and continuous development.
Indicator No. 2.2 Learning from unplanned events	Learning from unplanned events (incidents, events, cases) is necessary to prevent similar undesirable events from reoccurring, and to create a culture of SHW prevention and learning. Adequate follow-up of reported unplanned events will increase reporting and learning.
Rule No. 3: Define targets – develop programmes
Indicator No. 3.1 Workplace and job inductions	Integrating SHW in induction (on-boarding) processes demonstrates that SHW are an integrated part of each job and each business process. SHW are an essential part of leaders’ and workers’ new job in a workplace. It can be both a formal and informal way of welcoming new personnel to an organization, group and/or job function, and highlights SHW purpose, values and goals.
Indicator No. 3.2 Evaluating targeted programmes	Evaluating targeted programmes (e.g. temporary campaigns) that integrate SHW in work processes helps to verify that they are implemented as intended, and that the improvement goals for SHW are met.
Rule No. 4: Ensure a safe and healthy system – be well organized
Indicator No. 4.1 Pre-work briefings	Integrating SHW in pre-work briefings allows leaders and workers to identify context specific hazards, risks and prevention measures. This shows leadership focus and commitment to SHW, and a commitment to stimulating the active participation and influence of workers.
Indicator No. 4.2 Planning and organization of work	Planning and organization of work are essential for the success of every organization and for ensuring SHW. This is because planning can make an organization competitive and efficient. Several issues need to be considered in effective planning and work organization in order to promote SHW. Good planning and work organization promote good morale and a healthy organizational culture.
Rule No. 5: Ensure SHW in machines, equipment and workplaces
Indicator No. 5.1 Innovation and change	Technological, organizational and personnel changes occur frequently in organizations. Instead of assessing SHW risk after the changes, these changes should be considered proactively, and to utilize innovation to improve SHW right from the start in the design phase.
Indicator No. 5.2 Procurement	The indicator aims to trigger the systematic use of procurement for SHW improvement. Procurement, particularly of hardware, can determine SHW risks for a long period, while procurement of services such as maintenance, is often associated with increased SHW risks.
Rule No. 6: Improve qualifications – develop competence
Indicator No. 6.1 Initial training	Competence is key to ensuring good SHW. Being proactive requires training/qualifying leaders and workers in advance, before they start their job. It also shows that no job or task should be carried out without the relevant SHW competences, and that SHW are an integrated part of any job or profession.
Indicator No. 6.2 Refresher training	Developing SHW competence should be an aspect of continuous professional development. Refresher training ensures that leaders and workers’ knowledge and skills on SHW remain up to date and include new SHW insights.
Rule No. 7: Invest in people – motivate by participation
Indicator No. 7.1 Suggestions for improvement	In the development of a prevention culture and the active involvement of workers, it is important that suggestions of workers for SHW improvements are welcomed and are taken seriously. This will stimulate workers’ active commitment to SHW and demonstrates their leaders’ commitment to improving SHW.
Indicator No. 7.2 Recognition and reward	Providing timely, proactive and relevant recognition and reward for excellent SHW performance to both leaders and workers is essential for fostering a SHW culture that is based on trust, respect, participation and cooperation.

Zwetsloot, G., Leka, S., Kines, P., & Jain, A. (2020). Vision zero: Developing proactive leading indicators for safety, health and wellbeing at work. Safety Science, 130, 104890. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753520302873

Øien, K. (2001). Risk indicators as a tool for risk control. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 74(2), 129-145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832001000679?casa_token=BVpXn5QSqGwAAAAA:eW2sncB3HZrUSCN53mc5a6F4Ei0QSwfWGRXa8GoNqNJ3VOsNsZWMaIZrqlM0ce_8leLtQUXIKriB

Table 5. The final set of KPIs assigned to individual OSH MS components.

OSH MS component	KPIs (main^a and alternative)
Policy
A. OSH policy	A₁: Number of OSH policy reviews and updates carried out by top management A₂: Percentage of workers declaring good knowledge of OSH policy A₃: Number of safety walkthroughs performed by top managers
B. Workers’ participation	B₁: Number of OSH improvements proposed by workers B₂: Number of OSH Commission meetings on regular OSH issues

Organizing
C. Responsibilities and accountability	C₁: Percentage of work posts with defined OSH responsibilities and duties
D. Delivering OSH training	D₁: Percentage of workers participating in OSH refresher courses D₂: Number of hours for OSH training per person
E. Evaluation and improvement of OSH training programmes	E₁: Percentage of OSH training courses reviewed and improved for their quality and effectiveness
F. OSH MS documentation	F₁: Percentage of OSH MS procedures improved due to corrective actions F₂: Percentage of workers participating in trainings on OSH MS structure, procedures, etc.
G. Communication	G₁: Number of meetings conducted by managers to inform workers on OSH issues G₂: Rating of the effectiveness of OSH communication via workforce survey G₃: Number of issues of company’s OSH bulletin or other internal OSH publications
Planning and implementation
H. OSH goals and improvement plans	H₁: Number of measurable OSH improvement goals established in the enterprise H₂: Percentage of tasks in OSH improvement plans verified and accepted with regard to the quality and effectiveness
I. Risk assessment processes	I₁: Percentage of periodically verified risk assessment processes with regard to their validity and correctness of risk control measures applied
J. Implementation of risk control measures	J₁: Percentage of workers informed on risk levels and risk control measures applied J₂: Number of risk control measure implementations with hierarchy of measures considered
K. Management of change	K₁: Number of analyses of impact on OSH carried out with regard to changes in OSH regulations, technologies and knowledge K₂: Percentage of workstation with risk assessment verified in course of introduction of new machinery, materials, changing work method etc.
L. Emergency prepared-ness and response	L₁: Percentage of workers trained on emergency procedures, including rescue activities and first aid
M. Procurement	M₁: Percentage of periodically verified OSH requirements applied in purchase specifications M₂: Percentage of purchased larger objects for which risk assessment has been carried out prior to bringing them into use
N. Contracting	N₁: Number of contractors assessed for their compliance with OSH management requirements
Evaluation
O. Performance monitoring and measurement	O₁: Percentage of definitions of leading and lagging performance indicators subject to periodical review and update
P. Investigation of work-related accident, diseases and incidents and their impact on OSH	P₁: Number of corrective and preventive actions carried out as a result of root cause analyzes of work-related accidents, diseases and incidents P₂: Percentage of medical consultations carried out within the programme of workers’ health surveillance
Q. Management system audit	Q₁: Percentage of OSH MS components or processes subject to assessment during internal OSH MS audits
R. Management review	R₁: Percentage of recommendations formulated by top managers at OSH MS reviews considered in OSH improvement plans
Action for improvement
S. Preventive and corrective action	S₁: Percentage of completed corrective and preventive actions in relation to all actions initiated by OSH MS audits and reviews, OSH performance monitoring, and root cause analyses of work-related accidents, incidents and diseases S2: Percentage of completed corrective actions reviewed and evaluated for their effectiveness
T. Continual improvement	T₁: Number of new OSH goals and objectives established in the framework of OSH MS continual improvement T₂: Number of OSH management KPIs subject to benchmarking with other companies

Akroush, N. S., & El-adaway, I. H. (2017). Utilizing construction leading safety indicators: Case study of Tennessee. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(5), 06017002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000546

O’Neill, S & Wolfe, K, Measuring and reporting on work health & safety, Canberra, Safe Work
Australia, 2017. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1802/measuring-and-reporting-on-work-health-and-safety.pdf

Liang, H., Zhang, S., & Su, Y. (2018). Using leading and lagging indicators to select safe contractors at the prequalification stage of construction projects. International journal of occupational and environmental health, 24(1-2), 61-74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6225369/

Ali, M. X. M., Arifin, K., Abas, A., Ahmad, M. A., Khairil, M., Cyio, M. B., … & Ali, M. N. (2022). Systematic literature review on indicators use in safety management practices among utility industries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(10), 6198. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/10/6198/pdf

Table 1. Occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) areas of activity, associated criteria, and key performance indicators (KPI)

OHSMS activity	Code	Criteria	KPIs
Policy	PO1	A. Top management commitment	A₁: The no. of OHS meetings in which top managers participate
	PO2	B. Communicating OHS policy & availability at workstations	B₁: Percentage of employees informed about OHS policy
	PO3	C. Reviewing & updating OHS policy	C₁: The no. of OHS policies that have been reviewed
	PO4	D. Consistency with other organizations’ policies	D₁: Percentage of OHS regulations & standards applicable to workstations
	PO5	E. Workers’ participation in developing OHS policy	E₁: The no. of OHS hazards reported by workers
	PO6	F. Simplicity & understandability of OHS policy	F₁: The no. of workers who have a good understanding of OHS policy
	PO7	G. Preliminary risk assessment for developing OHS policy	G₁: The no. of risk assessments carried out in units
	PO8	H. Supervision of OHS policy implementation	H₁: The no. of managerial meetings to discuss OHS issues
Planning	PL1	I. Workers’ participation in workstation risk assessments	I₁: The no. of near-miss reports by workers
	PL2	J. Encouraging workers to participate in risk assessments	J₁: The no. of rewards given to workers for OHS hazard reports
	PL3	K. Recording & reporting OHS activities for risk assessment planning	K₁: The no. of units in which OHS report & record-keeping systems exist
	PL4	L. Communicating OHS activities	L₁: The no. of OHS brochures distributed to workers
	PL5	M. Reviewing & updating risk assessment policies	M₁: The no. of risk assessments updated
	PL6	N. Using units’ OHS data during OHS program development	N₁: The no. of near misses
	PL7	O. Deadline for OHS programs	O₁: The no. of OHS programs carried out in a defined period
	PL8	P. Announcing OHS programs & objectives	P₁: The no. of OHS events for employees
	PL9	Q. Allocating financial resources to OHS programs	Q₁: Financial resources allocated for OHS/y ($)
Implementation and operation	IM1	R. Training workers in OHS to ensure competence	R₁: The no. of h allocated for OHS training per person
	IM2	S. Using risk assessment results during OHS training plan development	S₁: The no. of workstations for which a risk assessment exists & corrective action or changes have been made
	IM3	T. Announcing OHS activities & issues to workers	T₁: The no. of OHS posters, bulletins, or newsletters published
	IM4	U. Workers’ participation in OHS activities	U₁: The no. of accidents due to a lack of PPE
	IM5	V. Incentive for workers to participate in OHS activities	V₁: The no. of rewards for participating in OHS activities
	IM6	W. OHS documentation & regulation	W₁: The no. of tasks that have OHS procedures
	IM7	X. Allocating financial resources to ERP	X₁: The no. of ERP training course completed
	IM8	Y. Emergency response drills based on risk assessment results	Y₁: The no. of workstations that have an ERP procedure
	IM9	Z. Practical emergency response drills based on procedures	Z₁: The no. of emergency response drills performed
	IM10	AA. Provision of emergency response equipment & regular inspection & testing	AA₁: The no. of verified OHS procedures applied during purchase or use
	IM11	AB. Establishing an organizational structure for OHS	AB₁: The no. of units that have an OHS reporting system
Checking	CH1	AC. Measuring & monitoring based on risk assessment	AC₁: The no. of units where OHS performance has been evaluated
	CH2	AD. Measuring & monitoring based on lagging indicators	AD₁: The no. of OHS violations, & no. of sanctions
	CH3	AE. Record & control systems for OHS activities	AE₁: The no. of units that have OHS reporting systems
	CH4	AF. Announcing results of OHS audits to workers	AF₁: The no. of meetings held with workers on OHS issues
	CH5	AG. Deadline for OHS audits	AG₁: The no. of audits performed in a given period
	CH6	AH. Continuous review of OHS audits	AH₁: The no. of audits that have been reviewed
	CH7	AI. Worker involvement in accident investigations	AI₁: The no. of accident investigations carried out with worker participation
	CH8	AJ. Reviewing & updating accident investigations	AJ₁: The no. of training courses on accident investigation
	CH9	AK. Announcing accident investigation results to employees	AK₁: The no. of accident reports sent to units
	CH10	AL. Announcing corrective & preventive actions	AL₁: The no. of meetings carried out to discuss corrective & preventive actions
	CH11	AM. Presence of a recording, reporting & analysis system for accidents	AM₁: The no. of accidents, reported near misses
Management review	MA1	AN. Having a timeframe to review meetings	AN₁: The no. of review meetings carried out
	MA2	AO. Results of OHS activities available for review	AO₁: The no. of OHS performance reports from units
	MA3	AP. OHS indicators included in reviews	AP₁: The no. of recommendations for continual improvement
	MA4	AQ. Presence of a manager during review meetings	AQ₁: The no. of managers of units attending review meetings

Mohammadfam, I., Kamalinia, M., Momeni, M., Golmohammadi, R., Hamidi, Y., & Soltanian, A. (2017). Evaluation of the quality of occupational health and safety management systems based on key performance indicators in certified organizations. Safety and health at work, 8(2), 156-161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791116300634

Johnsen, S. O., Okstad, E., Aas, A. L., & Skramstad, T. (2012). Proactive indicators to control risks in operations of oil and gas fields. SPE Economics & Management, 4(02), 90-105. https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/sites/oshwiki/files/2022-03/v17i2art2_Johnsen.pdf

Brown, M. (2009, September). Developing KPIs that drive process safety improvement. In Hazards SSI, Symposium series (No. 155). https://www.icheme.org/media/9659/xxi-paper-031.pdf

Walaski, P. (2020). The role of leading & lagging indicators in OSH performance management. Professional Safety, 65(08), 29-35. https://aeasseincludes.assp.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/065/08/F2Walaski_0820.pdf

Caldarescu, G., Florea, L., Nagit, G., & Bernevig, M. A. (2021). The importance of performance indicators in occupational safety and health management-a review. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 343, p. 10016). EDP Sciences. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2021/12/matecconf_mse21_10016.pdf

Jafari, M. J., Nodoushan, R. J., Shirali, G. A., Khodakarim, S., & Zare, H. K. (2018). Indicators of organizational resilience in critical sociotechnical systems: A qualitative study for the refinery complex. Health Scope, 7(3). https://brieflands.com/articles/healthscope-14134.pdf

Janackovic, G. L., Savic, S. M., & Stankovic, M. S. (2013). Selection and ranking of occupational safety indicators based on fuzzy AHP: A case study in road construction companies: Case study. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 24(3), 175-189. https://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajie/v24n3/15.pdf

Simpson, I. R. (2006). An investigation into the use of positive performance indicators to measure OHS performance (Doctoral dissertation, UNSW Sydney). https://scholar.archive.org/work/g3zd4vfabnh6vmxjaj2tntm7ga/access/wayback/https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/576cdde4-d975-4baf-b0c6-3d4fa32c5268/content

Agumba, J. N., Pretorius, J. H., & Haupt, T. C. (2014). Important health and safety performance improvement indicators for small & medium construction enterprises in South Africa: eliciting expert opinion using the Delphi Technique. Ergonomics SA: Journal of the Ergonomics Society of South Africa, 26(2), 3-22. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theo-Haupt/publication/327690913_Important_Health_and_Safety_Performance_Improvement_Indicators_for_Small_Medium_Construction_Enterprises_in_South_Africa_Eliciting_Expert_Opinion_Using_the_Delphi_Technique/links/5b9f809245851574f7d1c8f5/Important-Health-and-Safety-Performance-Improvement-Indicators-for-Small-Medium-Construction-Enterprises-in-South-Africa-Eliciting-Expert-Opinion-Using-the-Delphi-Technique.pdf

Psychosocial Indicators

Bergh, L. I. V., Hinna, S., Leka, S., & Jain, A. (2014). Developing a performance indicator for psychosocial risk in the oil and gas industry. Safety science, 62, 98-106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753513001835?casa_token=ss3wP2KqnnQAAAAA:XWT155TZ3S96f4OOK3IHHjxgfXCDecYmVsZvX9UrH0sdWddtsr8YKhO4HjaP7qMVujgUXgSLxaJB

Hall, G. B., Dollard, M. F., & Coward, J. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate: Development of the PSC-12. International journal of stress management, 17(4), 353. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/108839351/a002132020231212-1-vio1ds-libre.pdf?1702401327=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPsychosocial_safety_climate_Development.pdf&Expires=1731894404&Signature=fa~VWgdrep27jPz~oKc9Uns61Y6mkwtiSdqlJthvhoogrx1Rl79ogWePf1FUlh3A-7AgC5DUUF1Oj0UnaANV7YoNfvToAbGBtY8X-uNPit9ifJoaZS3l~7mZyPWTXkQmo1IYmXxcC-zYfr31uY~EHXcSgJZdkQcodCEPYJO2zYyQfRpWsheYkpOKdgbW9EeYJF2mHxVUDqt4VmPQx~3LTFrJNXWg5S~~JuXtpt4PWRI7WkTJlr3uBt6HZFQrteHUgTV901isvi3VGwcaY4gFAMHCj-0CQgQDb~jnRHTm9Ii5DOpUM1o27xa4NYLbuZiRSBFN4vtGgmH2QEKdqexb1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Berthelsen, H., Muhonen, T., Bergström, G., Westerlund, H., & Dollard, M. F. (2020). Benchmarks for evidence-based risk assessment with the Swedish version of the 4-item psychosocial safety climate scale. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8675. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8675/pdf

Weaver, B., Kirk-Brown, A., Goodwin, D., & Oxley, J. (2023). Psychosocial safety behavior: A scoping review of behavior-based approaches to workplace psychosocial safety. Journal of safety research, 84, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.10.006

Caveats, Limitations, Advice on Indicators

Kilskar, S. S., Øien, K., Tinmannsvik, R. K., Heggland, J. E., Hinderaker, R. H., & Wiig, S. (2016, April). Major Accident Indicators in High Risk Industries-A Literature Review. In SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability? (p. D021S031R001). SPE.

Øien, K., Utne, I. B., Tinmannsvik, R. K., & Massaiu, S. (2011). Building safety indicators: Part 2–application, practices and results. Safety science, 49(2), 162-171.

Bellamy, L. J., & Sol, V. M. (2012). A literature review on safety performance indicators supporting the control of major hazards. https://rivm.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10029/256345/620089001.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Table 2. Challenges and considerations associated with stages of development, implementation and adoption (use)of leading indicators.

Stages	Challenges and precautions	Considerations and potential solutions
Development of leading indicators	Lacking consensus on the definition, purpose and type of LIs and the indicated phenomena (i.e. safety), and absence of clear guidance or tool on how to develop LIs (Guo and Yiu, 2015; Akroush and El-adaway, 2018; Haji et al., 2022).	Successful utilisation of LIs requires three solutions viz.: 1) a clear conceptual framework for deriving LIs and their associated set of purposes; 2) a selection process that determines which LIs are to be applied and how; 3) a specification of how LIs fit into management and decision-making processes (Guo and Yiu, 2015).
	Avoiding fragmented or single level view on LIs and their effect on safety performance (Xu et al., 2021).	LIs should be developed to describe and monitor specific safety conditions through a systematic development process where safety conditions are viewed as a dynamic phenomenon created, improved, and maintained by safety practices (Guo and Yiu, 2015).
	Removing or significantly reducing biases in the process of developing, selecting, using and measuring LIs (Leveson, 2015).	While heuristic biases cannot be eliminated, a structured method for identifying, detecting, and managing LIs can reduce the impact of our biases (Leveson, 2015).
	Tending to use only statistically sensible data by safety managers hinders recognition, identification or effective use of LIs (Hopkins, 2009, Haji et al., 2022).	While a quantitative indicator can be useful for benchmarking, a qualitative indicator provides deeper explanation of the how or why and opens opportunity for improvement by providing insightful context (Mengolini and Debarberis, 2008, Oswald, 2020).
	There is no specific set of LIs to monitor safety and safety culture (Mengolini and Debarberis, 2008).	LIs should be developed for: product/element level, system level and system of systems level because every level requires a different set of LIs (Rhodes et al., 2009).
	Avoiding adoption and use of LIs by directly sourcing from other projects, organisations or industries without adjustments (Xu et al., 2021).	Since safety management within each organisation is unique and contextual, organisation or project specific LIs must be considered (Xu et al., 2021).
	The difficulty in developing any theoretically well-motivated indicators that can be ‘objectively’ linked and shown to predict actual major process incidents prevents the generation of effective and believable LIs (Hudson, 2009).	Initially, conditions impacting safety changes must be studied. After which LIs should be developed based on the assumptions generated (i.e. how safety is changing) (Leveson, 2015).
Implementation of leading indicators	Difficulty to convey to users in worksites the constructs of LIs (Costin et al., 2019).	To develop established, learnt and shared understanding of: what is normal, expected and desired (versus what is not normal, unexpected and undesirable); what to observe, monitor, expect and fear when experiencing LIs in worksites (Costin et al., 2019).
	Due to similarity to classical metrics in the base measures collected, it may be difficult to secure a buy-in from an organisation’s management and practitioners to use LIs as they may be superficially dismissed as “something we are already doing.” (Rhodes et al., 2009; Akroush and El-adaway, 2018).	Project leadership teams should: 1) self-determine (with input from their safety professionals and workers) the LIs needed to drive higher levels of performance; and 2) be willing to hold themselves (and their respective teams) accountable for sustained performance improvement (Toellner, 2014).
	Effective ways to present the information in a concise and graphical form are required to address the specific information needs of the organisation or project to augment effective decisions (Rhodes et al., 2009, Toellner, 2014).	Data must be presented in an unambiguous fashion (Toellner, 2014).
	A dearth of information about LIs’ validation hinders their extrapolation (Rhodes et al., 2009).	In the early phases of LI use, the individual organisation still should further validate the conditions under which a LI can be most useful in their organisation by observing its usefulness in various programmes over time (Rhodes et al., 2009).
	The fact that interpretation of LIs is a blend of statistical analysis and subjective assessment based on experience (Rhodes et al., 2009).	Guidance to tailor LIs to the project environment and usage experience must be carefully developed with highly knowledgeable staff or subject matter experts (Rhodes et al., 2009).
	It may be difficult to secure leadership support for using high level engineering talent for a “task” (for interpreting the collected data, i.e. LIs) that was previously performed by junior analysts (Rhodes et al., 2009).	The effective use of LIs requires: a systems engineering programme in order to gather and analyse the indicators; dedicatation of experienced personnel’s time to the interpretation of the resulting information. Utilising indicators for real-time management of programmes requires decision making using this information at all levels (Rhodes et al., 2009).
	Deciding whether to use LIs as standalone, combined or aggregated sets could become challenging (Rhodes et al., 2009).	Selecting appropriate LIs in the context of organisational factors is a rich area for future research. Future studies must focus on: understanding the relationships between the LIs; whether it is possible or necessary to find appropriate ways to aggregate LIs; and when aggregation should not be undertaken (Rhodes et al., 2009).
	Adequate training must be developed for these indicators to obtain a wide level of infusion across industry. This includes two levels of training, one for the decision-makers and one for the measurement practitioners (Rhodes et al., 2009).	Decision-makers should receive a short course focused on describing LIs, the utility of the indicators, and the resources needed to implement them. Practitioners training courses should focus on selecting the optimum indicators, how to analyse and interpret for leading insight rather than lagging insight, and detail discussion and exercise for the indicator (Rhodes et al., 2009).
Adoption (use) of leading indicators	A critical aspect of adopting LIs is their potential manipulation when corporate safety culture is not firmly established. The focus on “what can be measured” rather than “what should be measured” might have a misleading impact on understanding and management of systems’ states (Hudson, 2009, Patriarca et al., 2019).	To adopt a dynamic and agile methodology which allows to continuously identify and refine the most appropriate LIs (Patriarca et al., 2019).
	Difficulty in determining an accurate forecast of accidents due to the complexity and abundance of variables in safety systems constitute an obstacle in LIs use (Mengolini and Debarberis, 2008, Guo and Yiu, 2015, Akroush and El-adaway, 2017).	During the implementation process, LIs should be continually improved and adjusted by comparing the results with the intended effects (Akroush and El-adaway, 2017).
	Data collection takes time and the lack of a centralised repository to build a core history overshadows potential benefits of using LIs (Rhodes et al., 2009, Guo and Yiu, 2015).	Collecting LIs and other contextual data in a centralised database enables establishment of safety analytics where organisations can identify holes in their safety systems and provide a source of positive safety metrics for employees (Pettinger, 2013).

Relationship with Performance and Other Measures

SafetyInsights.org

Home of safety & risk research summaries

Research Compendium: Safety & Risk Performance indicators (lead, lag, drive, process safety + more)

Published by Ben Hutchinson

4 thoughts on “Research Compendium: Safety & Risk Performance indicators (lead, lag, drive, process safety + more)”

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by Ben Hutchinson

4 thoughts on “Research Compendium: Safety & Risk Performance indicators (lead, lag, drive, process safety + more)”

Leave a comment Cancel reply