Posted: September 9th, 2022

OSH7012 Measuring Safety, Health, and Well-being Performance

OSH7012 MEASURING SAFETY, HEALTH, AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE
By:

OSH7012 Measuring Safety, Health, and Well-being Performance
Measurement is one of the accepted sections in the “plan, do, check and act management system. Performance is essential in the health and safety management system as it is finance or production or in the service delivery system. Performance measurement in the health and safety management system involves an audit, planning, implementing, organizing, reviewing performance, and establishing policy. Performance management’s essential function is to provide policymakers with an opportunity to secure health system improvement and accountability. It also improves decision making by all players in the health system. Therefore, this paper aims to pinpoint key leading and lagging indicators and critically assess the key indicators’ strengths and weaknesses. Further, it will evaluate the effectiveness of crucial leading and lagging indicators in informing decisions and improving the organization’s health, safety, and well-being performance.
Performance Indicators
Performance measurement systems are designed and implemented to support the achievement of organizational objectives. Thus, measurement is an essential part of the occupational health and safety management system. Measuring performance gives the occupation safety and health (OSH) specialist’s feedback on how the system is running by providing reliable data used to evaluate the effectiveness of an organization’s OSH performance in implementing appropriate safety measures. Besides, it is recommended that an organization adhering to the OSH guidelines should follow a plan, do, check, and act approach in monitoring and measurement of occupational health and safety performance (“Managing for health …”, 2013, 7). Also, the measure of performance should encompass both qualitative and quantitative approaches. However, the methods should be applied at the organization’s macro and micro levels based on its structure and size. The design and various performance indicators vary based on intent and purpose (Kokic & Misic, 2014, 158). Thus, the changing nature of hands allows for new indicators to be incorporated and those no longer needed to be excluded from the list.
Additionally, the performance of OSH cannot be assessed using single indicators. Thus, its assessment needs to utilize a hierarchical approach focusing on outcome indicators, positive performance indicators, and evaluation of attitudes and perceptions (Lingard, 2017, 17). The structure’s quantitative methods are objective and reactive, while the qualitative aspects are more subjective and proactive (“Work Health and Safety …”, 2017, 13). The purpose of using the hierarchical model is to various OSH ranking relative to one another. Analysis of crucial lagging and leading indicators’ strengths and weaknesses provides essential information informing decision-making and improving occupational safety and health and organizational well-being performance.
Key Lagging and Leading Indicators
Measurement of performance indicators requires one to focus on both bottom-line results of safety and factors in the facility preventing the occurrence of incidents and accidents. Lagging indicators focus on current production performance while leading indicators inform OSH professionals o how to achieve desired results. Besides, leading indicators provide active monitoring of the OSH management system’s progress, adequacy, application, and positioning. Also, they focus on actions that promote a favorable safety and health culture. On the other hand, lagging indicators consist of reactive monitoring of results that lead to injuries, loss, accidents, and ill-health(Hughes & Ferrett, 2016, 143). Moreover, leading indicators can measure the effectiveness of implementing occupational health and safety management systems before accidents occur. On the other hand, lagging indicators facilitate outcomes after accidents have occurred (Lingard, Wakefield, Blismas, 201, 3, 4). According to Pawłowska (2015, 285), leading indicators include OSH inputs such as working conditions and preventive measures and OSH processes such as OSH policies and OSH programs. On the other hand, lagging indicators focus on occupational accidents and work-related diseases.
Additionally, assessing both lagging and leading indicators is essential in enacting a management system that reduces risk. It is generally assumed that improvement and utilization of leading indicators affect lagging indicators (Pawłowska, 2015, 285). Thus, each organization should adopt a management system that fits into organizational culture, which would gain employees’ trust in occupational accident prevention. The key performance indicators selected should also identify specific areas that require improvement as the selection is highly judgmental. In the Mirus case study, OSH professionals identified leading indicators in health and safety auditing, employee assistance program, sickness and absence of lagging indicators, staff survey, and investors in people report.
Moreover, leading indicators define the currents state of occupational health and safety and act as precursors in identifying accidents and incidents. Besides, they measure various variables used to predict interrelationship between activities and injury prevention (Sinelnikov, Inouye, Kerper, 2015, 241). According to Pawłowska (2015, 286), some leading indicators in the OSH management system include management commitment that assesses management involvement and its support in applying control measures and its foundation to build on others. Secondly, it consists of a safety inspection that evaluates important occupational safety factors, identifies possible lapses in control measures, and implements appropriate control measures (Hughes & Ferrett, 2016, 105). Thirdly, a safety audit is essential in analyzing the OSH system against the standard performance. The fourth vital leading indicator is employee training that focuses on measuring skill and knowledge adequacy and their attitudes on job performance and their responsibilities towards safety (“Managing for health …”, 2013, 8). The last leading indicator is employee participation, focused on assessing employee involvement in decision making concerning accident and incident prevention (Pawłowska, 2015, 285). Besides, employee participation in accident reduction increases faith in the organization and fosters support between them and the management.
On the other hand, lagging indicators asses failures associated with in-place risk control measures. The indicators are referred to as “after the fact” indicators as the organizational management can only respond to them after an incident (Lingard, 2017, 18). However, according to Pawłowska (2015, 284), they considerably lack assurance in predicting performance, thus only focusing on assessing adequate occupational health and safety performance losses. Some of the lagging indicators include reportable accidents that focus on determining the number of reportable accidents in an organization in compliance with national and international regulations. Secondly, the accident severity rate is concerned with assing the number of person-days lost due to occupational accidents per million person-hours worked (“Workplace Safety …”, 2012, 20). The third indicator, accident frequency rate, assesses the number of workplace accidents per million hours worked (“Workplace Safety …”, 2012, 20). The authority enforcement indicator also assesses the number of fines, stops work orders, and penalties for non-compliance with various aspects of regulations. The final hand is accident cost that focuses on multiple expenses, uninsured and insured costs of an incident or accident (Ridley & Channing, 2008, 206). Thus, accidents can be used to estimate the relative risk level of illnesses and injuries in an organization.
Additionally, safety climate is also a vital measure of performance. It is used to analyze employee’s performance by assessing their attitudes and perceptions about their work. Moreover, the safety climate acts as a tool to determine surface features of the safety differentiated from staff attitudes and perception at a given time (Lingard, Wakefield, Cashin, 2011, 34). Besides, safety climate provides crucial exhaustive information on the root causes of occupational health and safety problems in an organization. According to Vincent, Burnett, and Carthey (2013, 17), results from the safety climate surveys are similar to reports on accidents, staff behavior, and an organization’s safety performance. Therefore, a safe climate provides an image of the underlying culture of an organization.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Leading Indicators
Leading indicators allow OSH experts to assess and monitor the effectiveness of implemented safety systems and an organization’s overall health. In the recent past, OSH professionals, organizations, and researchers have focused on predictive and proactive leading indicators. As a result, an organization’s efforts to ensure the application of OSH risk control interventions before accidents occur are assessed early enough to ascertain an organization’s preparedness in dealing with a problem when it appears. The leading indicators take principal roles to directly measure occupational health and safety performance before accidents happen (Lingard, Wakefield, Blismas, 201, 3, 7). The various aspects measured by leading roles can further be adopted as objectives. Consequently, programs can be developed to facilitate the said objectives’ achievement (Minnick & Wachter, 2019, 34). Moreover, such leading indicators can assess factors that can be measured regularly, such as organizational leadership commitment, safety audit, safety inspection, and employee participation and education. However, the leading indicators have their strengths and weaknesses.
The implementation of various approaches and procedures in an organization relies on leadership commitment in the facility. Focusing on specific leading indicators creates awareness among top management. Moreover, as the indicators gain more importance towards organizational performance, the entire organization staff and executives embrace indicators. Besides, occupational health and safety professionals need to equip the executives with necessary information concerning the leading indicators and their implementation (“Transforming EHS performance …”, 2016, 13). Administrators who fail to recognize the importance of leading indicators in organizational success should be made aware of the indicators’ valuable insights in fostering performance. Besides, employee participation and performance on occupational health and safety are significantly affected by the executives’ influence. The executive’s contribution towards safety can be demonstrated by active involvement in gathering data on occupation health and safety, participating in safety tours, participating in audit analysis, seeking active feedback from employees on OSH procedures, and getting involved in feedback gathering meetings. Active participation of employees in the OSH process fosters output from employees to top management and facilitates employee buy-in in the applied approaches. Also, it facilitates communication and trust between staff and employers on matters of occupational safety and health. Besides, their participation results in lower accident rates and high chances of reporting incidents and accidents. Assignment help – Discussions with employees on safety and health processes do not provide a quantitative evaluation that can improve organizational safety.
Additionally, safety audits and analysis offer management a chance to rectify any lapses and gaps in implementing safety processes. The indicators further assess the periodic safety audits that provide direct feedback on OSH performance (Lingard, Wakefield, Cashin, 2011, 36). Assessment of OSH audit reports facilitates the detection of depreciation in the OSH management system’s quality and pushes the organization towards compliance with specified legal requirements. Also, the information from audit analysis approaches of continuous improvement of the system. However, audit analysis has less value when conducted by a non-qualified person. A competent OSH professional performs audit inspection is influential in determining gaps and hazards and lapse in safety processes. Moreover, they can also provide preventive and corrective measures that can add more value to the organization.
Moreover, employee training is vital in organizational health and safety performance. Apart from complying with employee training’s legal requirements, it also equips staff with necessary occupational health and safety skills, thus positioning them to perform their duties (Hughes & Ferrett, 2007, 60). On the other hand, employee training is a week indicator of organizational safety performance (Lingard, Wakefield, Cashin, 2011, 38). It is therefore hard to find a correlation between training levels and the levels of accidents and incidents. As opposed to leading indicators, lagging indicators paint a clear picture of OSH performance outcomes after an incident or accident.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Lagging Indicators
Data and information collected from lagging indicators are essential in influencing management and OSH experts’ organizational safety decisions. The data collected from lagging indicators such as reportable accidents, authority enforcement, and accident costs affects management motivation and understanding workplace safety (Lingard, Wakefield & Cashin, 2011, 40). The data collected from functional outcomes can be used to verify the accuracy of safety processes and paint clear trends on accident occurrence frequencies compared to national and industry safety statistics. Thus, lagging indicators are result oriented and provide ideas of achieving zero occupational accidents. Moreover, they provide much-needed information on leading indicators and organizational safety management systems’ approaches and effectiveness.
Additionally, the statistics from lagging indicators can compare OSH performance or an organization with various industry players. Thus, the executives can focus on lagging indicators that affect the franchise at cooperate and project level. Based on statistics collected from the Campell institute survey, about 44% of the participants affirmed that lagging indicators and some leading indicators are used to assess corporate level OSH performance (Chew, 2017, n.p.). Further, misconceptions regarding several factors that affect lagging indicators make top management feel optimistic when periodic audit indicates good performance. On the other hand, when OSH performance declines, the administration feels pessimistic until the situation improves. Such responses and attitudes by management in response to one indicator illustrate an inadequate and inappropriate approach to implementing corrective and preventive actions.
Moreover, organizations follow regulations from their regulatory bodies. As such, organizations are required to report incidents that require reporting under the applicable legal requirements. The data reported is valuable in the computation of accident severity rate and accident frequency rates. These factors are vital in assessing management’s performance index. According to Lingard, Wakefield, and Cashin (2011, 36), organizations that emphasize lagging indicators result in underreporting. One example is a Singapore court that was convicted doctor for providing inadequate hospitalization leave for an injured staff and allowing him to work in a light-duty station before full recovery (Kurohi, 2019, n.p.). Such incidences are considered unethical and signify a symbiotic relationship between the employer and the employees as employers gain from the unethical conduct by maintaining their safety records. On the other hand, when organizations focus on rewarding outcomes, groups or individuals, lagging indicators assess their performance. Consequently, the actions create pressure on underreporting or failure to report accidents and incidents. (Vincent, Burnett and Carthey, 2013, 15). Providing false data to the regulatory bodies or OSH professionals results in wrong plotted trends, distorting data accuracy and negatively influencing staff. Also, it results in the organization employees’ blame culture will see no importance in collecting and computation of accident statistics.
Additionally, the participation of authority in enforcement gives the organization’s management an overview of the lapses in required compliances noticed during periodic audits. The enforcement equips the franchise to design and implement an action plan to improve OSH performance creating a safety concerned culture in the organization (“Demerit Points”, n.d., n.p.). Besides, analysis of direct and indirect costs of accidents and incidents indicates the total accident cost for a specific period. However, an accident’s actual cost to an individual takes longer to find the actual cost in one year. Besides, the actual cost is based on the direct cost, medical expense, and compensations, all metrics that can not be measured immediately.
Effectiveness of Leading and Lagging Indicators
Lagging and leading indicators provide vital information to the organization regarding occupational health and safety. Both indicators help OSH professionals and management designs and processes that improve overall OSH performance by giving the organization’s current status profile. They also help determine the factors associated with the current shortcomings and provide clues on how the lapses can be remedied to improve the organization’s performance (Hughes & Ferrett, 2006, 103). Also, management commitment, as demonstrated by various leadership aspects, is an essential and influencing factor in developing a safety culture and OSH performance. Their contribution involves walkthroughs in organizations to seek information on safety, periodic assessment of workplaces, and occasional gathering of information from employees. Moreover, administrative aspects include presiding over safety committee meetings, occasional management review meetings, and getting involved in the follow-up to closure activities aimed at corrective and preventive actions (Blair, 2017, 33). Thus, visible executive involvement and commitment in OSH indicate efforts that result in overall staff motivation (Huges & Ferrett, 2007, 58). Hence, having management’s participation and strategically scheduled and applied safety measures improve overall organizational performance.
Additionally, leading indicators that assess employee training and involvement in decision-making significantly improve OSH performance. Effective employee participation, communication, and training increase their contribution towards workplace safety (Huges & Ferrett, 2007, 407). Besides, they can easily associate themselves with the design and implementation of various accident prevention programs.
On the other hand, lagging indicators may lack adequate data for analysis and elucidation regardless of their validity. Besides, indicators with a low probability fail to provide information in time to apply preventive and corrective processes. In small organizations, lagging indicators such as accident frequency rate and accident severity rate may provide deceiving information that may result in complacency due to the less workforce exposed to risks. According to Stranks (2006, 8), lagging indicators are essential in providing data that can help develop a strategic plan to improve OSH performance. Therefore, it is necessary to frequently review lagging indicators for timely implementation of corrective and preventive measures.
Hence, improvement of OSH performance requires compliance with applicable legal regulations. Some regulatory agencies issue different orders to organizations that breach their safety requirements. In 2019, one hundred and twenty-three Singapore organizations were prosecuted for non-compliance with the fire safety act (“Fire, Emergency medical …”, 2019, 9). The response indicates the reactive culture in the approach of health and safety enforcement.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the paper discusses various lagging and leading indicators and their strengths and weaknesses. Also, their effectiveness in facilitating occupational health and safety in the organization is also discussed. The leading indicators assess proactive measures while lagging indicators assess results on performances. Organizations have shifted to using leading predictive indicators instead of lagging indicators. However, indicators are still essential to OSH professionals in determining the effectiveness of the organization’s safety performance. The indicators can also be modified, adjusted, and used in the selection of effective leading indicators. Quantifiable lagging indicators may be preferred due to their reliability in data interpretation when used together with some leading indicators. Organizational management and OSH professionals need to select an appropriate mix of lagging and leading indicators for practical organizational performance assessment. Other approaches may be implemented to analyze the correlation between the chosen lagging and leading indicators fostering a better understanding of OSH state in the organization. Thus, a change in organization culture perception ought to adopt key performance indicators that involve both lagging and leading indicators. As a result, the organization will have a more comprehensive OSH system. Management and OSH professionals who strategically plan and effectively implements safety measures facilitate improved company performance and impact the development of safety-conscious culture among the employees.

References
Blair, E., 2017. Strategic Safety Measures: Seven Key Benefits. Professional Safety, 62(02), pp. 32-39.
Campbell Institute -National Safety Council, 2016. Transforming EHS performance measurement through leading indicators, s.l.: Campbell Institute -National Safety Council.
Channing, J. & Ridley, J., 2003`. Safety at work.. Eighth ed. s.l.:Routledge.
Chew, S. B., 2017. How to Choose the Right Safety Metrics to Create Value and Focus. [Online]
Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-choose-right-safety-metrics-create-value-focus-soon-boon-chew/
[Accessed 14 February 2021].
Health and Safety Executive, 2013. Managing for health and safety, s.l.: Managing for health and safety.
Hughes, P. & Ferrett, E., 2006. Introduction to Health and Safety at Work. Third Edition ed. s.l.: Taylor & Francis.
Hughes, P. & Ferrett, E., 2016. International Health and Safety at Work. Third Edition ed. s.l.:Routledge.
Kokic, A. & Music, M., 2014. ‘Health and Safety and Environmental Key. s.l., 8th International Quality Conference May, pp. 157-166.
Kurohi, R., 2019. Singapore. [Online]
Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/longer-suspension-for-doc-who-gave-worker-insufficient-sick-leave
[Accessed 14 February 2021].
Lingard, H., 2017. Work Health and Safety Performance Guide- Promoting work, s.l.: The South Australian Mining and Quarrying.
Lingard, H., Wakefield, R. & Blismas, N., 2013. “If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it”: Measuring health and safety performance in the construction industry: Brisbane, 19th Triennial CIB World Building CongressAt: Brisbane.
Lingard, H., Wakefield, R. & Cashin, P., 2011. The development and testing of a hierarchical measure of project OHS performance. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 18(1), pp. 30-49.
Mining & Quarrying Occupational Health and Safety Committee, 2017. Work Health and Safety Performance Standards Guide: Promoting Work Health and Safety in the Workplace, Keswick SA: Mining & Quarrying Occupational Health and Safety Committee.
Ministry of Manpower, n.d. Demerit Points. [Online]
Available at: https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-and-health/monitoring-and-surveillance/demerit-points-system#:~:text=Contractors%20in%20the%20construction%20sector,Workplace%20Safety%20and%20Health%20Act.&text=An%20accumulation%20of%20a%20minimum,trigger%20debarm
[Accessed 14 February 2021].
Minnick, W. D. & Wachter, J. K., 2019. The Role of Leading and Lagging Indicators in Evaluating OSH Professionals’ Performance. Professional Safety, 64(1), pp. 32-36.
Pawłowska, Z., 2015. Using lagging and leading indicators for the evaluation of occupational safety and health performance in the industry. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 21(3), pp. 284-290.
Sinelnikov, S., Inouye, J. & Kerper, S., 2015. Using leading indicators to measure occupational health and safety performance. Journal of Safety Science, Volume 72, pp. 240-248.
Singapore Civil Defence Force, 2019. Fire, Emergency medical services and enforcement statistics 2019, s.l.: Singapore Civil Defence Force.
Stranks, J. W., 2006. The A-Z of Health and Safety. London: Thorogood Publishing Ltd.
Vincent, C., Burnett, S. & Carthey, J., 2013. The measurement and monitoring of safety, London: The Health Foundation.
WSH Council, 2012. Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines, s.l.: WSH Council.

Order | Check Discount