1026 Int Diploma IA3 v2

Element IA3: Measuring and Reviewing Health and Safety Performance


© Santia 2013 ® – restricted use only

Page 1 sc/1026/v2



Page 2 sc/1026/v2


Contents Purpose of Performance Measurement Measuring Performance Health and Safety Objectives Measures of Performance

Monitoring Systems Reactive Monitoring Active (Proactive) Monitoring Summary – Reactive and Active Monitoring Health and Safety Benchmarking

Reviewing Health and Safety Performance

5 5 6 6 7 8 9 17 18

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Process Safety Indicators (PSI) Health and Safety in Annual Reports

20 21 22 23

References

25


Page 3 sc/1026/v2



Page 4 sc/1026/v2


Purpose of Performance Measurement Measurement is essential to maintain and improve health and safety performance. There are two ways to generate information on performance: 1.

Active systems which monitor the achievement of plans and the extent of compliance with standards; and

2.

Reactive systems which monitor adverse events

Effective procedures are needed to capture both sorts of information.

Measuring Performance “If you can not measure your knowledge is meagre and unsatisfactory” – Lord Kelvin. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure”- Peter Drucker . Measuring performance is an accepted part of the ‘plan-do-check-act’ management process and is as much part of a health and safety management system as nancial, production or service delivery management. Health and safety differs from many areas measured by managers because success results in the absence of an outcome (injuries or ill-health) rather than a presence. A low injury or ill-health rate, even over a period of years, is no guarantee that risks are being controlled and will not lead to injuries or ill-health in the future. Historical records can be a deceptive indicator of safety performance. Organisations need to recognise that there is no single reliable measure of health and safety performance. What is required is a ‘basket’ of measures or a ‘balanced scorecard’, providing information on a range of health and safety activities. Measuring or monitoring performance is an essential aspect of managing anything. Strengths and weaknesses need to be identied and progress measured. Measuring is there fore essential to the maintaining and improving of health and safety performance enabling recommendations to be made for improvement.


Page 5 sc/1026/v2


Health and Safety Objectives The general health and safety aims and objectives of the organisation and the commitment to the strategic management of health and safety is incorporated into the health and safety policy document, which is reected in the rst step of any health and safety management system such as described in BS OHSAS 18001 An aim is a general goal – an un-quantied statement of intention. An objective allocates detailed performance requirements, and functions as a route marker on the way to achieving the organisation’s aims and intentions as set out in its Health and Safety Policy. Objectives should be SMART i.e.: ▪

Specic;

▪

Measurable;

▪

Agreed;

▪

Realistic; and

▪

Time framed.

Both short-and long-term objectives should be set and prioritised against business needs. Objectives at different levels or within different parts of an organisation should be aligned so they support the overall policy objectives. Personal targets can also be agreed with individuals to secure the attainment of objectives. Using a combination of proactive and reactive monitoring techniques, progress towards the objectives of the organisation can be measured and areas for improvement identied. In addition, monitoring also gives the organisation the opportunity to take a fundamental look at the objectives themselves. These can be reviewed to determine whether the objectives are appropriate and helping the organisation to achieve its health and safety aims and intentions as laid out in its policy. Objectives and targets are tools for translating the organisations intention into action, providing a direction and time-scale for driving the organisation forward. If an organisation is not working towards clearly dened objectives, there is no way of knowing whether it is making progress.

Measures of Performance Performance measures may be qualitative or quantitative. It is important for the practitioner to be aware of the nature of the measurement tool and its interpretation so that effective measures can be used. A qualitative measure is usually a description of terms which are found by the assessor which are not able to be described numerically for comparison or analysis and are therefore more subjective, e.g. the comprehensive completion of permit to work paperwork. Quantitative data is data which is able to be measured and analysed and is therefore more objective, e.g. the number of completed sections of a permit to work record. A comprehensive system of measuring will contain a range of qualitative and quantitative measures in order to provide a holistic view of the organisational performance at any given point in time and its trends.


Page 6 sc/1026/v2


Monitoring Systems Health and safety performance must be monitored at all levels of the organisation; from day to day monitoring by line managers and supervisors to periodic audits of management systems. Performance measurement systems fall into two broad categories: 1.

Reactive monitoring; and

2.

Active (proactive) monitoring.

It is advantageous for an organisation to employ both proactive and reactive performance measures in order that the organisation has a holistic view of the organisational performance. It should be noted however that whilst data can be gathered reactively through accident investigation and subsequent statistical analysis, new objectives for the organisation can be set based on the performance historically of an organisation over time. It could be argued that the setting of objectives and subsequent monitoring of progress towards those objectives is proactive performance measurement although there must be an element of reactive monitoring in order to gather this statistical evidence in order to set the objectives initially. Examples of these systems can be seen in the following table. Table 1: Active and Reactive Monitoring Reactive Monitoring

Active Monitoring

Near misses rates

Compliance with key performance indicators (KPI’s), standards and procedures:-

Accident, ill-health and sickness absence statistics/trends

▪

Completed risk assessments

Dangerous occurrences

▪

Staff attendance at training

Enforcing Authority intervention / enforcement

▪

Maintenance of equipment

▪

PPE being worn

▪

Standards of tidiness and housekeeping

▪

Consultation events taking place and documented

Complaints by the workforce or customers Civil claims and insurance premiums

Monitoring Organisational Failure


Monitoring Organisational Progress

Page 7 sc/1026/v2


Reactive Monitoring The term reactive monitoring stems from looking at events that have passed, arguably monit oring failure. By counting the number of unwanted events, such as accidents, incidents (near misses) or ill-health reports, the safety practitioner can monitor the organisations’ performance over a period of time in comparison with similar performance data for different time periods. By examining trends in data the performance over a period of time can be consistently compared against similar data using the data analysis techniques described earlier.

Reactive Monitoring Techniques Accident and Ill-health Statistics Traditionally the main (sometimes the only) way of monitoring health and safety performance was to analyse data on unwanted events such as accidents, incidents or ill-health reports and to present the information in the form of statistics. A number of fairly standard formats exist; namely Incidence Rates, Frequency Rates and Severity Rates.

Data Sources for Work-Related Ill-Health There is no single comprehensive source of information for occupational and work-related disease statistics. The statistical picture must be pieced together from different sources such as: The ILO website has estimates by region of accidents and ill health data. CIS is the knowledge management arm of the ILO Programme on Safety and Health at Work and the Environment (SafeWork).CIS continuously monitors world literature on occupational safety and health (OSH) through its 150 focal points (CIS Centres) at the national and regional level around the world. Many National Governments and Labour Organisations compile statistics on accidents and illhealth as well as various epidemiological studies which are conducted worldwide with results that are published to medical experts in the rst instance.

Limitations of Accident and Ill-health Data Table 2: Advantages and Limitations in the Use of Statistics Advantages

Limitations

Provide a numerical measure (easy to compare)

Historical; they may not represent current of future performance (the Titanic had an accident free record until it sank!)

Data can be analysed to identify the most common types of accident or part of the body injured or the most problematic: ▪

Workplace

▪

Activity

▪

Individual

Perceived by many as the only ‘real’ measure of performance


Only as accurate as the data provided, under reporting is common Chronic ill health problems not identied until it’s too late Where small numbers of employees are involved, the statistics may not be meaningful A measure of symptoms not the cause

Page 8 sc/1026/v2


Active (Proactive) Monitoring The objective of active monitoring is to check that health and safety plans have been implemented and to monitor the extent of compliance with the organisation’s systems and procedures and against legal or technical standards. Essentially the organisation is monitoring its progress in health and safety.

Active (Proactive) Monitoring Techniques Active or proactive monitoring is the term given to monitoring techniques for examining performance in comparison against a standard of performance that is expected or set in the organisational goals over a period of time. Proactive monitoring then looks forward towards attaining specied objectives rather than looking backwards in time at previous performance against objectives.

Workplace Inspections The main purpose of a safety inspection is to identify those hazards that are not controlled to a suitable standard, e.g. as specied in the law or within risk assessments. The inspection is a formal, organised and structured examination of the physical working environment including work equipment. Inspections may be carried out by any number of suitably qualied (competent) personnel, or combination of people. The safety ofcer / adviser may conduct an inspection to compare against standards or legal compliance or members of the safety committees may carry out an inspection to ascertain conditions pertinent to committee business. Similarly worker representatives may have the right to conduct inspections of the workplace. National Labour Inspectorates may conduct inspections usually unannounced to determine compliance with legal standards, accident investigation or investigation of complaints. In their most basic form, a general workplace inspection involves the identication of obvious visible hazards with the objective of eliminating or controlling the hazards that have been identied.

Limitations of Inspections Many hazards cannot be eliminated so it is necessary to decide whether or not they are adequately controlled or controlled in accordance with prescribed standards. This requires knowledge of the appropriate standards as well as the systems of work in operation. In many cases, eliminating the hazard may be dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause. It may be necessary to investigate more thoroughly to nd out how the hazard arose so that similar hazards can be prevented from arising in the future. These problems can only be overcome if the inspections are carried out by people who are trained and competent (have the necessary knowledge, ability, training and experience) to do so.


Page 9 sc/1026/v2


Carrying out a General Workplace Safety Inspection The inspection should be planned and structured to ensure that maximum benet is gained from the process. Before the Inspection All inspections should be recorded to ensure that a record of observed strengths and weaknesses is maintained. This will allow the organisation to monitor its progress over time. Examination of the previous inspection records is therefore an important element in preparing for the inspection. Where the purpose of the inspection is to compare performance within the workplace with standards, either those which are set internally or legal standards, then the inspector should take the time to familiarise themselves with the standards prior to conducting the inspection. In many situations the use of pre-prepared checklists of topics may be useful as a memory aid and to prompt the inspector into examining the appropriate areas. A checklist might include various points under headings such as: ▪

The workplace (oors, walls, roofs, access / egress);

▪

Work equipment (guarding, condition, and suitability);

▪

Personal protective equipment (suitability, use, storage);

▪

Fire precautions (alarms, extinguishers, escape routes, signs);

▪

Ergonomics (workstation layouts, manual handling);and

▪

Materials (proper storage and handling, hazardous and ammable substances).

This list is by no means exhaustive. During the Inspection The person conducting the inspection should ensure that comprehens ive notes are made of any suspected breaches of law or other standards. Similarly where inadequately controlled hazards are identied a suitable record should be made and the hazards dealt with as appropriate. The inspection is about monitoring the standards as much as identifying problems so the inspector should be mindful of recording improvements following any previous inspections. The record should be as comprehensive as possible and include all relevant areas such as storage areas as well as work areas. There is little or no point in recording trivia at the expense of genuine hazards or areas for improvement. After the Inspection Simply identifying hazards and listing them is unlikely to improve safety so inspections must lead to corrective action. Following an inspection it is essential to identify actions to eliminate or control the hazards now, and also to prevent them from occurring again. It is useful when making recommendations for improvement to prioritise the actions to be taken and set clear responsibilities and dates for action with provision for review of the actions at an appropriate point.


Page 10 sc/1026/v2


General workplace inspections, whilst providing valuable information for the safety practitioner and the organisation, have three major limitations: 1.

Some hazards are not visible, e.g. psychological stress, poor process design;

2.

Some hazards are not always present, e.g. intermittent mechanical faults, overowing or leaking vessels, hazards that may occur in certain circumstances; and

3.

Unsafe practices (i.e. people behaving in a manner, which may expose them to a hazard) are just as important as hazards.

It is necessary therefore to supplement inspections with other methods. These limitations can be overcome by the use of additional techniques such as the follow.

Safety Sampling This is a random sampling exercise in which observers follow a pre-determined route usually at normal walking pace and note any omissions or non compliances. The numbers of noncompliances, etc are counted to provide a score of the overall effectiveness of the safety performance. The technique has little scientic validity (the observer’s attentiveness is sure to vary) but has the advantage of raising the prole of the safety improvement effort.

Safety Tours A safety tour is an unscheduled (usually) examination of the workplace to assess whether or not acceptable standards of housekeeping, safe access, re precautions, etc. are being maintained. These are not detailed inspections but a way of demonstrating management commitment and interest and to see obvious examples of good or bad performance. Some hazards may be identied but a tour gives a general impression rather than a thorough analysis of hazards. Following the safety tour a written observation sheet of identied health and safety failings or concerns can be used to set further objectives or further goals regarding either sampling survey or audit requirements in order to further the organisational performance.

Safety Surveys As with building surveys, a safety survey is normally carried out by a specialist who will either be focusing on specic topics (e.g. a survey of re precautions) or will be asked to report on the main strengths and weaknesses. Detailed reports are normally produced as a result of surveys. Similarly the detailed report as a result of the survey can be used to specify particular objectives against which further organisational performance can be measured.


Page 11 sc/1026/v2


Health and Safety Audits Since the 1960s a number of commercial audit systems have been available. However, many of these were not true audit systems, because they were not measuring against a management system, but were simply inspections of physical standards regarding health and safety. The ILO-OHS Guidelines on Occupational Health and safety Management Systems; 2001 dene audit as: ‘A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which dened criteria are fullled. This does not necessarily mean an independent external audit (an auditor or auditors from outside the organization’). Audits should be conducted by persons who are competent and independent from the activity that is being audited, but may be drawn from within the organisation. At different times and for different reasons, audits will need to cover the following questions: ▪

Is the organisation’s overall OH&S management system capable of achieving the required standards of OH&S performance?

▪

Is the organisation fullling all its obligations with regard to OH&S?

▪

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the OH&S management system?

▪

Is the organisation (or part of it) actually doing and achieving what it claims to do?

OHSAS 18001 management standard requires an audit component, as follows: “The organisation shall establish and maintain an audit programme and procedures for periodic occupational health and safety management system audits to be carried out in order to: ▪

determine whether or not the occupational health and safety management system conforms to planned arrangements for occupational health and safety management including requirements of this occupational health and safety management system specication: ▪

has been properly implemented and maintained; and

▪

is effective in meeting the organisation’s policy and objectives;

▪

review results of previous audits; and

▪

provide information results audit to management.


Page 12 sc/1026/v2


The ILO-OHS Management Standard requires the following: “The audit should cover: a.

OSH policy;

b.

worker participation;

c.

responsibility and accountability;

d.

competence and training;

e.

OSH management system documentation;

f.

communication;

g.

system planning, development and implementation;

h.

prevention and control measures;

i.

management of change;

j.

emergency prevention, preparedness and response;

k.

procurement;

l.

contracting;

m.

performance monitoring and measurement;

n.

investigation of work-related injuries, ill health, diseases and incidents, and their impact on safety and health performance;

o.

audit;

p.

management review;

q.

preventive and corrective action;

r.

continual improvement; and

s.

any other audit criteria or elements that may be appropriate.”

The audit programme, including a schedule, should be based on the results of risk assessment of the organisation’s activities and results of previous audits. The audit procedures should cover scope, frequency, methodology and competence as well as the responsibilities and requirements for conducting the audits and reporting results. Wherever possible, audits should be conducted by personnel independent of those having direct responsibility for the activity being examined. Audit questions are often worded so that a ‘yes’ answer scores points. There is usually provision for qualied answers (if for example “the exits are marked but are not all kept clear”).


Page 13 sc/1026/v2


Evidence is gathered from a variety of sources, such as; ▪

People (interviews);

▪

The workplace (a tour); and

▪

Documents (an examination of records of training, inspection / test, maintenance, etc.).

A thorough audit is very detailed but could be described as a full examination of the systems of management to ensure that they; ▪

Exist;

▪

Adequate; and

▪

Used in practice.

The existence of a safety management system or detail is a question of fact. Whether or not the detail contained within the management system or system of work is adequate is a question of judgement. The auditor must have the necessary competence (i.e. knowledge, ability, training and experience) to make the judgement on the adequacy of the management system in question. Finally, whether the management system or system of work under review is used, is again a question of fact which can be monitored over a period of time. Interviews of personnel within the organisation may be horizontally sliced or vertically sliced in order to get the views from a range of different levels within the organisation. For example, it may well be the case that the view of a group of managers is that the system of work is in place and is carried out whereas below the management level the experience of the workers may be that the system of work, although comprehensive and while documented, it is not actually put into practice because it is cumbersome to do so or hinders the actual activity taking place.

Reasons for Audit The evaluation of the system’s effectiveness is considered be a powerful management tool for quality improvement. In fact, many authors argue that one of the primary purposes of audits is continuous improvement (Burr, 1997, Hunt, 1999 Willborn and Cheng, 1994; Russell, 1997; Russell and Regel, 1996; Walker, 1998; Ramsey, 1998). Ramsey observed that without an effective audit, all control systems tend to deteriorate over time or to become obsolete as a result of change. Ramsey further observed that in reality some drift often occurs, and perhaps standards are not maintained or some unnoticed changes occur. An effective method of preventing this identied ‘drift’ in control of standards is by regular audit. An effective audit will identify such drift at an early stage and allow corrective action in good time.


Page 14 sc/1026/v2


Independence It is important to demonstrate the independence of an audit. To achieve this, the management system such as ISO 14000 is part of an accreditation scheme. Audit bodies subject to these accreditation schemes must submit themselves for accreditation to an appropriate national or international accreditation body. These accreditation bodies include National and International interlinked structures such as: ▪

United Kingdom Accreditation Service;

▪

The European Co-operation for Accreditation; and

▪

International Agreements on Accreditation

Reliability of Audit Karaptrovic and Wilborn (1999) identied that in performing auditing activities, the auditors must objectively and independently collect and verify audit evidence. Objectivity and independence were identied as two separate, yet interrelated, fundamental principles of auditing. They identify that objectivity relates to the consistency of the auditing process and results, materiality of evidence, the use of appropriate methodology, the application of a systematic approach to auditing, as well as being free from bias are also important aspects. Consistency means that two auditors auditing the same system against identical criteria should come up with similar conclusions.

Comparison of Environmental and Health and Safety Audit Environmental and health and safety audits share common features in that both audits require assessment of compliance against standards which are often legal, as opposed to quality which is against internal or customer requirements. Whatever audit protocol is used, the underlying purpose is independently verifying or otherwise the compliance to standard and continuous improvement.


Page 15 sc/1026/v2


Developing an Audit System Auditing is characterised by reliance on a number of principles. These make the audit an effective and reliable tool in support of management policies and controls, providing information on which an organisation can act to improve its performance. Adherence to these principles is a prerequisite for providing audit conclusions that are relevant and sufcient and for enabling auditors working independently from one another to reach similar conclusions in similar circumstances. To ensure the success of a health and safety audit it is important to gain the support and commitment from senior managers and from the key parties involved in order for them to provide time and information. Key steps of the audit process include planning, interviewing and verication, providing immediate feedback, report writing, communicating the ndings and follow up actions. When developing the system it is necessary to consider the nature, scope, and frequency of the audit programme, the standards against which to benchmark and the resources required. In the planning phase, the type of audit should be established e.g. vertical or horizontal. A horizontal audit assesses the same process across different groups or departments, while a vertical audit assesses all the activities in a given department. Horizontal audits may be appropriate for such things as employee training and internal controls. It is not uncommon for both auditing approaches to be used when examining a company’s or department’s overall system. It should also established whether the audit is to be comprehensive or selective and the audit personnel chosen appropriately, either individual or team auditors, local or independent auditors. The provision of an audit protocol and audit skill training may be necessary. Audit questionnaires and scoring systems may need to be developed or it may be decided to purchase or use proprietary audits. The number of questions will depend upon the complexity and level of risk in the organisation. Different questions may need to be developed for senior managers, managers and workers. The scoring system may require weighting to reect levels of risk and compliance with legislation and internal / external standards. Computer technology may be used to store and analyse the data collected and assist in the production of reports and monitoring of performance trends. Prior to undertaking a full audit it is benecial to communicate the purpose and implications of the new audit process and to undertake a pilot audit so that the effectiveness of the audit programme can be evaluated and revised if necessary.


Page 16 sc/1026/v2


Summary – Reactive and Active Monitoring Table 3: Monitoring Systems Accident Statistics

Inspections

Data based on past failures

Intended to reveal hazards that are not controlled to a standard

Historical may not reveal current or future problems Data may be inaccurate

Done before there is an accident Reveal visible non-compliance with standards

Can reveal trends Useful for prioritising

Can be largely reactive if they lead to ‘xes’ rather than corrective action

Under reporting can be misleading

Relies heavily on visible evidence only

Zero accidents does not necessarily indicate low risk

Sampling Attempt to provide a method or comparison to show improvement (or otherwise) Sampling only, not thorough Takes little time Can be used to involve employees Tours Intended to provide a general impression Not detailed

Accident Investigation

Surveys

Many of the limitations as for statistics, although investigations can reveal underlying problems

Focus on specic topics – can be thorough

Thoroughness tends to depend on the severity of the injury not potential Audits Tests the existence, adequacy and use of the safety management system – very proactive


Page 17 sc/1026/v2


Health and Safety Benchmarking In its original meaning, a benchmark is a reference point used in surveying. From this, benchmarking came to mean comparing with a ‘standard’. More recently, benchmarking has developed into a business improvement tool. It can be applied to any area of an organisation’s work, including health and safety management. Benchmarking is not just about comparing data or copying competitors, it is more about continuously learning from others, learning more about the organisation’s strengths and weaknesses in the process, and then acting on the lessons learned. This is what leads to real improvement. Benchmarking should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself, as some organisations aim for business excellence and want to be seen as ‘best’ or at least better than average. Health and safety benchmarking is a ve - step cycle aimed at ensuring continuous improvement:

Step 1: Decide What to Benchmark Benchmarking can be applied to any aspect of health and safety but it makes sense to prioritise. High hazard and risk topics are sensible places to start as these are areas where most harm could be done. Consider looking at the ndings of risk assessments, accident and ill-health patterns in the organisation or industry may also indicate priorities, especially if any common causes can be identied. Consider both health and safety processes and performance indicators and benchmark both. Performance data, e.g. accident and ill-health statistics, percentage of risk assessments completed give an indication of where priorities may be. Process benchmarking allows real improvement to be made by considering what goes on and how it could be done better, these may be at workplace level (e.g. how a particular hazard is controlled) or management level (e.g. how incidents are investigated, risk assessments are carried out).

Step 2: Analyse Where You Are Identify the starting position - is the organisation meeting health and safety law or relevant codes of practice in the chosen topic? Consider how to measure where the organisation is now and where it wants to be. This will help in the measurement of improvements from benchmarking. Quantitative or qualitative measures based on data can be used, e.g. the percentage of managers who have completed health and safety training or the perceptions on the quality of management training. Comparison of audit system results (sometimes these are ‘scores’) can often be used as a measure, providing they are of similar type and content.


Page 18 sc/1026/v2


Step 3: Select Partners Large organisations can nd partners both within the organisation (internal benchmarking) and outside (external benchmarking). Smaller organisations will probably need to look outside, as they are unlikely to have a wide range of potential partners to choose from inside their rms.

Step 4: Working with a Partner With the right planning and preparation, this stage should be relatively straightforward: ▪

Be realistic - do not try to do too much in one go;

▪

When exchanging information, make sure it is comparable;

▪

Respect partners - remember condentiality and keep to agreed topics; and

▪

Keep to timescales and send a message of thanks.

Step 5: Learn and Act on Lessons Learned Devise an action plan, based on the ndings and generate SMART objectives (Specic, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Timescale). Implement the action plan and regularly review progress with it. If there are problems it may be useful to contact partner(s) again to help overcome them. Remember continuous improvement - if standards have moved on, reset the benchmark and start from Step 1 again.


Page 19 sc/1026/v2


Reviewing Health and Safety Performance Organisations can maintain and improve their ability to manage risks by learning from experience through the use of measuring tools and performance reviews. Reviewing performance is a process of analysing data gathered through monitoring techniques to make judgements about whether performance is adequate and standards are being maintained, i.e. that risks are adequately controlled and managed. The review itself can be carried out in many ways and be both formal and informal. Formal reviews may take place in the form of annual management reviews where formal reports are published and annual action plans agreed and implemented, through to informal reviews which may be carried out periodically at departmental meetings, safety meetings or safety discussion groups. The inputs into this review process will be not only be the results of the monitoring carried out but also the organisation’s health and safety objectives, its organisational arrangements, systems and procedures and any external standards and expectations (societal, legislation, labour inspectorates etc). The outputs of the process will be the generation of action and improvements plans to address any inadequacies observed, together with the publication of stakeholder reports and the setting, resetting or reafrming of performance targets or standards. Performance standards are the foundation for a positive health and safety culture and enable the organisation to establish action and improvement plans internally. Reviewing performance also provides the information required for reports to interested parties outside of the organisation.


Page 20 sc/1026/v2


Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) It is quite common for organisations to set their most important performance standards in the form of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These may be on the organisation as a whole, departmental, individual or a combination of these. KPIs for reviewing the organisation’s overall health and safety performance can include the: ▪

Assessment of the degree of compliance with health and safety system requirements;

▪

Identication of areas where the health and safety system is absent or inadequate;

▪

Assessment of the achievement of specic objectives and plans; and

▪

Analysis of accident, ill health and incident data accompanied by analysis of both the immediate and underlying causes, trends and common features.

These indicators are consistent with the development of a ‘positive health and safety culture’. They emphasise achievement and success rather than merely measuring failure by looking only at accident data. Organisations may also ‘benchmark’ their performance against other organisations, as discussed earlier by comparing: ▪

Accident rates with those organisations in the same industry, which use similar business techniques;

▪

Processes and experience of similar risks; and

▪

Management practices and techniques used within other organisations to provide a different perspective and new insights on health and safety management within the safety management system.


Page 21 sc/1026/v2


Process Safety Indicators (PSI) For major hazard installations and chemical manufacturers, process safety risks will be a signicant aspect of business risk, asset integrity and reputation therefore the main reason for measuring process safety performance is to provide ongoing assurance that risks are being adequately controlled. Early warning of dangerous deterioration within critical systems provides an opportunity to avoid major incidents. PSI are developed by identifying the critical controls in place to prevent major accidents/incidents, then for each critical element of the control develop both leading and lagging indicators. An example is shown in gure 1 for PSI for maintenance of critical safety equipment Figure 1: Inspection and Maintenance Indicators


Page 22 sc/1026/v2


Health and Safety in Annual Reports For many organisations there are national requirements to publish annual reports as to the organisations performance including health and safety. Annual reports are a vehicle for organisations to describe their risk prole and performance in managing signicant risks, including health and safety risks. As an incentive for continual improvement, it is recommended that all organisations include a summary of their health and safety performance results in their annual report. Within the UK the HSE guidance (HSE 2001) explains how to address health and safety issues in the company’s published annual report. Appropriate health and safety information should be included in the published reports on company activities and performance. This demonstrates to stakeholders the company’s commitment to effective health and safety risk management. It also shows that the company is alert to the need to monitor and improve its health and safety performance. There may be other health and safety developments that a company may wish to report to highlight their contribution to improving health and safety performance. As a minimum the annual report should address key health and safety issues including the effectiveness of systems for controlling health and safety risks. Reporting should include the following information: ▪

The broad context of the company’s health and safety policy;

▪

Signicant risks faced by employees and others and the strategies and systems in place to control them;

▪

Health and safety goals;

▪

Progress towards achieving health and safety goals in the reporting period, and on health and safety plans for the forthcoming period;

▪

Specic developments impacting upon the company’s health and safety performance, (e.g. the introduction of new working practices, technological change or employee training and development);

▪

Signicant health and safety plans for the coming years which build on past performance and are noteworthy; and

▪

Arrangements for consulting employees and involving safety representatives.

If the information is not currently available an indication should be given of the steps being taken to gather the information for publication in later reports.


Page 23 sc/1026/v2


In addition, the report should provide the following data on health and safety performance: ▪

The number of injuries, illnesses and dangerous occurrences which should be reported to the health and safety enforcing authority;

▪

Brief details of the circumstances of any fatalities, and of the actions taken to prevent any recurrence;

▪

The number of other cases of physical and mental illness, disability or other health problems that are caused or made worse by someone’s work rst reported during the period;

▪

The total number of employee days lost due to all causes of physical and mental illness including injuries, disability or other health problems. The number of days thought to be caused or made worse by someone’s work should be identied, as should the main causes of absence; and

▪

The total cost to the company of the occupational injuries and illnesses suffered by staff in the reporting period.

The UK’s Institute of Occupational Safety and Health publication “Reporting Performance” identies that reporting can be divided into three levels: ▪

Level 1 ‘Minimal’ health and safety reports – these should be issued by all organisations. Typically, ndings are compiled by directors and presented in a section of the annual report;

▪

Level 2 ‘Comprehensive’ internal health and safety reports – these will be developed as organisations increasingly accept the business case for good health and safety performance, rather than viewing it purely as a compliance issue; and

▪

Level 3 ‘External’ health and safety reports – these will be issued by organisations that value their public image and accept that dialogue with external stakeholders is a key component in their long term sustainability.

For level 3 reporting, organisations should plan their ‘external’ health and safety report in the context of overall CSR reporting in accordance with the principals of the Global Reporting Initiative (See element IA2)


Page 24 sc/1026/v2


References HSE

2003

HSG48, Reducing Error and Inuencing Behaviour.

HSE

1996

HSG 96, The Cost of Accidents at Work.

BSI

1999

OHSAS 18001, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.

HSE

2001

Health and Safety in Annual Reports – Guidance from the Health and Safety Commission.

ISO

2002

ISO 19011; Guidelines for Quality and Environmental Management Systems Auditing.

GRI

2006

Global Reporting Initiative; Sustainability reporting guidelines on economic, environmental and social performance. Version 3.0.Netherlands:

Step Change in Safety. Leading performance indicators — Guidance for effect ive use. Undated. HSE

2006

HSG 254, Developing process safety indicators: a step-by-step guide for chemical and major hazard industries. Sudbury: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg254. htm.

AIChE

2008

CCPS recommendations for process safety leading and lagging indicators. New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

HSE

Corporate Health & Safety Performance Index (CHaSPI): http ://www. chaspLinfo-exchange.com

HSE

Health and Safety Performance Indicator (HSPI). 2005. - similar to CHaSPI, but for organisations with fewer than 250 employees: http.//onhine.businessiink.gov,ukibdotq/action!haspi

IOSH

Reporting performance. Guidance on including health and safety performance in annual reports: http://www.iosh.co.uk/information and resources/ guidance and tools.aspx#Managing

Accident statistics http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/accidis/index.htm


Page 25 sc/1026/v2

1026 Int Diploma IA3 v2

Recommend Documents