Leading Safety Indicators: Proactively Monitoring Safety Performance

Lawrence D. Nordine University College University of Denver Capstone Project for Master of Applied Science August 9, 2007

________________________ Kenneth W. Knox, Ph.D. Capstone Advisor

________________________ John A. Hill, Ph.D. Academic Director

Upon the Recommendation of the Department

________________________ James R. Davis, Ph.D. Dean

Nordine-ii Abstract Traditional measures or indicators of workplace safety performance reflect unrecognized hazards, unsafe conditions, reckless behavior, and other safety program shortcomings only after a worker is injured or falls ill. In contrast to traditional or lagging indicators, leading indicators can predict poor safety performance to ensure that safety program failings are addressed before an occupational injury or illness actually occurs. This Capstone Project identified a variety of proactive safety management practices, policies, and activities shown to have a positive impact on workplace safety as leading safety indicators. The end result is a comprehensive framework of leading safety indicators that employers can use to proactively gauge safety program performance and address unrecognized hazards, unsafe conditions, reckless behavior, and other safety program deficiencies.

Nordine-iii

Contents Abstract............................................................................................. ii Contents ........................................................................................... iii Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 Goals ........................................................................................... 2 Benefits ....................................................................................... 3 Literature Review ................................................................................ 3 Design and Implementation ................................................................ 16 Methods and Procedures ............................................................... 16 Rationale for Methods and Procedures ............................................ 17 Results ............................................................................................ 17 OSHA Safety and Health Management Program Guidelines ................ 18 Recommended Framework of Leading Safety Indicators .................... 23 Management commitment and employee involvement.................... 24 Worksite hazard analysis............................................................ 29 Hazard prevention and control .................................................... 30 Safety and health training .......................................................... 33 Summary......................................................................................... 35 Areas for Further Research ................................................................. 38 References ....................................................................................... 39

Nordine-1

Introduction Prominently displayed near the employee entrance of many factories, refineries, construction sites, and other workplaces is often a sign proudly announcing how many days have elapsed since the last lost time accident. When Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, it directed the Secretary of Labor to collect, compile, and analyze occupational safety and health statistics (29 U.S.C. 673 (2005)). In accordance with the Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) soon promulgated regulations mandating the collection of occupational safety and health data from a broad spectrum of American industry. Employers covered by the OSHA recordkeeping standard began to record and report work related injuries and illnesses that resulted in fatalities, lost time or days away from work, restrictions of work or motion, job transfers, loss of consciousness, medical treatment beyond simple first aid, and certain other significant or serious consequences. Once incorporated into the federal regulatory text, the OSHA recordkeeping criteria quickly eclipsed other voluntary recordkeeping standards to become the basis for industrial health and safety recordkeeping (Asfahl 2004). Since then, various measures of safety performance in the workplace have been derived from the OSHA recordkeeping criteria. These measures or indicators of safety performance range from simply counting how many lost time injuries and illnesses an employer has each year, to more elaborate

Nordine-2 equations that calculate the rate of injuries and illnesses an employer has per 100 employees over a twelve month period. Whatever the measure, be it counting the days since the last lost time accident or an injury rate, they are all lagging indicators; that is, they measure safety performance after the fact. Traditional measures of workplace safety are clearly lagging indicators that reflect unrecognized hazards, unsafe conditions, reckless behavior, and other safety program shortcomings only after a worker has been injured or falls ill. In contrast, leading indicators focus attention on the safety program itself to ensure that program failings are recognized and addressed long before an injury or illness actually occurs. This project provides a template of leading safety indicators that may be successfully employed to monitor safety program effectiveness, predict workplace safety performance, and ultimately prevent occupational injuries and illnesses.

Goals
Through application of the OSHA safety and health management program guidelines, this project suggests leading indicators that can be used to monitor safety program performance. The ultimate goal of this research and project is a comprehensive framework of leading indicators that employers can use to proactively identify, address, and correct safety program deficiencies.

Nordine-3 Benefits Providing a framework of leading safety indicators to facilitate a robust and proactive safety and health program benefits both an employer and the employees alike. This project benefits the employer by providing a tool to proactively measure, monitor, and improve safety program performance, demonstrate management commitment to worker safety, improve the safety climate of the workplace, and correct safety program deficiencies before they turn into costly accidents. Employees in turn, benefit from a healthier and safer work environment. Improved workplace safety also translates into improved efficiency as the production upsets, quality problems, and strained labor relations often associated with accidents are avoided. Likewise, improved workplace safety means higher profits as the cost of medical treatment, hospitalization, wages paid injured employees, fines levied for safety violations, and higher workers compensation insurance premiums are avoided. Finally, improved safety performance builds employer reputation and standing among its employees, community, customers, and peers, enhancing marketing attractiveness as it searches for new business and qualified recruits to hire. Literature Review Numerous studies and articles germane to this project are found in scholarly journals. Herrero et al. (2002) discussed how safety management has evolved to include many quality management elements and principles.

Nordine-4 The authors explained that traditional safety programs simply direct workers to comply with safety standards and rules, and often fail to improve safety results because they are centered on technical compliance, focused on short term results, and are usually isolated from other organizational functions (2002). The authors argued that improving safety is really no different than improving quality; it requires a management system centered on a proactive approach that bases improvements on data generated before an accident or defect occurs (2002). Robson et al. (2007) noted that occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) differ from traditional health and safety programs in that they are generally thought more productive, better integrated, and focused on evaluation and continuous improvement. Many OHSMS are based on the successful plan-do-check-act model of quality management and continuous improvement. Accordingly, many health and safety professionals presume that OHSMS implementation will result in injury and illness rate reductions. The authors tested this presumption by studying the effects that OHSMS implementation had on worker health and safety outcomes. While the evidence for or against OHSMS implementation was judged insufficient, the authors did agree that OHSMS benefits generally included improved safety climate, increased hazard reporting by employees, and more action taken by management to address health and safety issues in the workplace (2007).

Nordine-5 Torp and Moen (2006) investigated how motor vehicle repair garages in Norway were impacted by the implementation or improvement of mandatory health and safety management or internal control systems. Increased satisfaction with health and safety activities, coworker and management support, and participation in health and safety related activities were positively correlated with health and safety management system implementation or improvement. The authors concluded that positive changes in a companys health and safety management system such as holding safety meetings, discussing workplace hazards, and employee participation in hazard assessments and other safety related activities can result in positive changes in worker satisfaction with health and safety related activities, the psychosocial environment, and health related behaviors (2006). Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths (2004) reasoned that many companies fail to capitalize on the promotional opportunities presented by improvements in their health and safety management systems by focusing on lagging indicators such as the number of days since the last lost time injury. This focus on the output of the system often results in a false sense of security, which once shattered by an accident, results in a reactive approach to safety and health management. The authors argued that companies can enhance the safety culture of the workplace by promoting health and safety management improvements (2004). The authors defined culture as the

Nordine-6 behavioral norms created by the shared values and beliefs of an organization and identified management commitment to health and safety, management concern for employees, mutual trust and credibility between management and labor, and workforce empowerment as the critical features of a positive safety culture; features easily demonstrated and promoted through proactive actions such as risk assessments, inspections, audits, training, hazard reporting, and addressing safety issues by completing corrective actions (2004). Shikdar and Sawaqed (2003) examined the relationships between worker productivity and occupational health and safety in developing countries. The authors explained that reduced worker productivity, poor product quality, and increased costs can be traced back to inappropriate health and safety management practices that do not address ergonomic factors like improper workplace design, ill-structured jobs, mismatches between worker abilities and job demands, harsh work environments (temperature, humidity, noise, and so forth), and poor human-machine interface designs (2003). In particular, the authors noted a connection between poor workplace ergonomic conditions and performance problems such as low productivity, poor quality of work, high absenteeism, and lost work days (2003). Recommendations to improve workplace health, safety, and performance problems included: (1) using ergonomic guidelines to design jobs and workplaces, (2) conducting ergonomic assessments and task

Nordine-7 analyses, (3) providing ergonomics related training to employees and management alike, and (4) incorporating ergonomic improvement strategies into health and safety management programs (2003). Kjelln, Boe, and Hagen (1997) studied the impact that health and safety management had on the operating expenses of an aluminum foundry over a ten year period. The authors explained that like accidents, the costs of accidents are by nature uncertain and often far less than the cost of safety improvements to the workplace (1997). This means management support for safety improvements is in large part based on avoiding the uncertain costs of accidents (1997). Clearly, workplace safety will erode if management chooses to avoid the certain cost of safety improvements over uncertain losses from accidental causes. The authors argued that safety management is value adding work that promotes managements total control of the production process and contributes to a reduction in all manner of unwanted production upsets and failures (1997). The authors found that expenditures on proactive safety management practices such as clarifying responsibilities, focusing on order and housekeeping, continuous improvement through goal setting, effective performance measurement and feedback, systematic maintenance of plant equipment, safety education and training, and increased safety and health staff were more than offset by significant reductions in accidents and operating expenses (1997).

Nordine-8 Vredenburgh (2002) found organizations that take proactive steps to protect their employees benefit from fewer lost time accidents and reduced workers compensation costs. The author examined the effects that worker participation, safety training, hiring practices, rewards, management commitment, and communication and feedback had on injury rates in hospital settings. While proactive management practices such as rewarding employees for reporting hazards, employee training, assessing training effectiveness, communicating hazards, addressing safety issues quickly, and encouraging employee participation on safety committees appeared beneficial in reducing injuries, the most significant predictor of injury rates was a consideration of safety performance in the hiring of employees. While making hiring decisions based on previous work related accidents would likely prove problematic from a legal or privacy perspective, several of the proactive management practices described in the study could certainly be used as leading indicators of safety performance. Flin et al. (2000) examined the movement in United Kingdom industry towards leading or predictive measures of workplace safety from lagging measures based on retrospective data. According to the authors, awareness that organizational, managerial, and human factors are more likely than technical failures to cause accidents is driving this movement towards leading indicators (2000). Common themes identified as leading or predictive measures of safety included employee perceptions of: (1)

Nordine-9 management attitudes and behaviors toward safety; (2) the safety management system; (3) risk, including self-reported risk taking, perception of risk, and attitudes towards risk; (4) work pressure; (5) competence, including perceptions of worker qualifications, skills, and knowledge; and (6) procedures, including perceptions of safety rules, attitudes towards safety rules, and compliance with safety rules. OToole (2002) examined the potential use of employee perception surveys to measure safety performance and to predict safety results. The author explained that recent data suggest that management systems significantly reduce injury rates (2002). His study examined a company aiming to instill safety as one of its core values. To achieve this goal, the company instituted measures requiring supervisors and managers to set the correct safety example for their employees, provide positive safety related feedback to at least one employee each week, and engage their employees in a job safety analysis on a monthly basis. Over the months that followed implementation of the measures, the company experienced a statistically significant downward trend in lost time accident rates as shown in Figure 1. After surveying employee perceptions, the author found that the companys clearly demonstrated management commitment towards safety had a positive impact on employee perception of the safety management process (2002). In addition, the author found a strong causal relationship between the positive change in perception and the reduction in injury rates (2002).

Nordine-10 While the study was limited, it certainly appears the safety related activities required of the managers and supervisors of the subject company could have been responsible for the reduction of injuries observed by the author.

Figure 1. Lost time injury rates over before and after implementation of measures to demonstrate management commitment to safety (OToole 2002).

Thompson, Hilton, and Witt (1998) examined and validated the important role managers and supervisors play in creating a climate that sustains safe work behaviors. The authors measured employee perceptions of manager support for safety, supervisor support for safety, safety conditions, and compliance with safety rules. The results indicated that managers and supervisors play important but different roles in maintaining a safe workplace. Managers promote workplace safety by affecting organizational politics which impacts employee perceptions of physical

Nordine-11 workplace safety conditions, while employee perceptions of compliance with safety rules are impacted by the level of fairness exercised by supervisors. Choudhry, Fang, and Mohamed (2006) reviewed safety related literature seeking to develop a conceptual model of positive safety climate or culture. Their model (Figure 2) included three interacting elements: (1) the safety climate or internal psychological factors affecting personal safety as measured through employee perception audits; (2) safety behavior or external observable actions as measured by behavioral sampling; and (3) the safety management system as measured through objective audits. The authors concluded that safety culture reflects the effectiveness of the safety management system, and that measuring safety culture is a proactive way to assess safety performance (2006). Shannon et al. (1996) sought to correlate organizational culture and lost time accident rates in a wide variety of manufacturing industries. The authors found that low lost time accident rates were associated with companies that: (1) had better labor relations as perceived by managers; (2) had older, more seasoned workers with a low workforce turnover rate; (3) demonstrated concrete concern for their employee health and safety; (4) empowered employees by encouraging their participation in health and safety matters; (5) defined health and safety responsibilities in manager job descriptions; (6) included health and safety objectives in manager performance appraisals; and (7) had senior managers regularly attend

Nordine-12 health and safety meetings (1996). Factors that had little impact on lost time accident rates included the status of the health and safety coordinator, a written safety policy, and a joint (management and labor) safety committee (1996).

Figure 2. Conceptual model of construction safety culture (Choudhry, Fang, and Mohamed 2006).

Nordine-13 Mearns, Whitaker, and Flin (2003) researched the relationship between safety climate and accident rates on offshore oil and gas facilities. While the authors found only found partial support for the relationship between positive safety climate and fewer accidents, they did associate proficient safety management practices with low accident rates (2003). Recommendations for safety management strategy included: (1) frequent auditing of health and safety management systems to ensure proficiency; (2) extending worker health and well being efforts outside of the work environment; and (3) senior management demonstrating commitment to safety through participation in safety related meetings and talks. Simard and Marchand (1994) examined the impact that supervisor behavior had on accident prevention and workplace safety culture. The conceptual model offered by the authors (Figure 3) included two dimensions of supervisor involvement characterized by (1) the extent to which the supervisor is personally involved in safety related activities such as safety inspections, accident investigations, hazard analyses, and employee training; and (2) the extent to which the supervisor involves employees in the afore mentioned activities (1994). Based on supervisor involvement and employee participation, four types of supervisor behaviors were identified: (1) withdrawal, characterized by a lack of involvement by both supervisor and employees in safety related matters; (2) delegation, where the supervisor delegates responsibility for safety to employees without being

Nordine-14 personally involved; (3) hierarchical involvement, corresponding to the traditional situation where the supervisor takes care of safety related matters with minimal employee involvement; and (4) participatory involvement, characterized by a high degree of both supervisor and employee involvement in safety related activities. The results of the study indicated a significant positive relationship between participatory type supervisor involvement and effective occupational health and safety programs.
(+) Degree of Worker Participation ()

( ) Withdrawal

(+ ) Hierarchical Involvement

( +) Delegation

(+ +) Participatory Involvement

() Degree of Supervisor Involvement (+)

Figure 3. Conceptual model of supervisor involvement (Simard and Marchand 1994).

Bolton and Kleinstruber (2001) studied the effectiveness of risk assessments conducted by supervisors and employees in an integrated safety management system at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The five core functions within the system included (1) defining the scope of work, (2) analyzing hazards, (3) identifying and implementing controls, (4) confirming

Nordine-15 readiness and safely performing work, and (5) ensuring performance and collecting feedback. Based on improved safety performance over a five year period, the authors concluded that employee involvement in workplace risk assessments was vital to the overall success of the safety program (2001). Overall, the review of the literature supports the value of designing leading indicators to measure and predict workplace safety performance. Proactive management practices such as rewarding employees for reporting hazards, employee training, assessing training effectiveness, communicating hazards, addressing safety issues quickly, and encouraging employee participation in safety related activities appear beneficial in reducing injury rates (Robson et al. 2007; Torp and Moen 2006; Vredenburgh 2002). Clearly demonstrated management commitment seems to have a positive impact on employee perception of the safety management process, and there appears to be a strong causal relationship between a positive change in safety climate perception and a reduction in work related accidents (OToole 2002). Critical features of a positive safety culture (management commitment and employee involvement) appear easily demonstrated and promoted through risk assessments, inspections, audits, training, hazard reporting, completing corrective actions, and similar actions (Torp and Moen 2006; Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; OToole 2002;). Finally, there is evidence that safety results can be improved by using a proactive approach that bases improvements on data generated before an accident or illness occurs

Nordine-16 (Herrero et al. 2002). Clearly, the evidence supports the project goal of developing leading indicators that employers can use to measure safety performance to proactively address workplace health and safety issues before an occupational injury or illness actually occurs. Design and Implementation The project work plan focused upon empirical study that included conducting additional secondary research on the effects of health and safety management systems on workplace accident rates and examining the OSHA safety and health management program guidelines. The research was organized to identify the proactive management practices that have a positive impact on workplace safety. These proactive management practices were then adapted to form a comprehensive framework of leading safety indicators that can be used to measure and predict safety performance. Methods and Procedures Many studies have been conducted on the effects that various health and safety management schemes have on workplace injury rates, workers compensation costs, and safety culture. These studies were analyzed to identify the proactive practices, policies, and activities that have a positive effect on workplace safety. Using these proactive practices, policies, and activities as a guide, each element of the OSHA safety and health management program guidelines were examined to identify all the proactive actions suited for use as leading indicators of safety performance. Each

Nordine-17 proactive action was in turn analyzed to determine simple objective means to measure it. The end result is a comprehensive framework of leading safety indicators that effectively gauge the proactive actions associated with each OSHA safety and health management program guideline element. Rationale for Methods and Procedures Research on the effects that health and safety management has on workplace safety outcomes was important to this project. Management programs and systems proven to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses were examined for the proactive policies, practices, and activities cited as responsible for positive safety results. If these proactive elements are indeed responsible for reduced workplace injury and illness rates, it follows that assessing and predicting health and safety performance can be accomplished by measuring and monitoring these elements. The framework of leading safety indicators includes and is based upon objective measurement of the proactive management elements responsible for positive safety outcomes. Results This section includes an analysis of the OSHA safety and health management program guidelines to identify the proactive policies, practices, and activities suited for use as leading indicators of safety performance. Each proactive action was in turn analyzed to determine how best to qualify and measure it. The end result is a comprehensive framework of leading

Nordine-18 safety indicators organized by OSHA safety and health management program element. OSHA Safety and Health Management Program Guidelines OSHA (1989) maintains that effective management of worker safety and health protection reduces the number and severity of employee injuries, eliminates or adequately controls employee exposure to toxic materials and other unhealthy conditions, improves employee moral and productivity, and significantly reduces workers compensation expense and the other less obvious costs of work related injuries and illnesses (for example: overtime paid employees to fill in for injured coworkers, time spent training employees to replace injured coworkers). The OSHA safety and health program guidelines are designed to apply broadly to all types of industrial operations, large or small, simple or complex. The program guidelines also form the basis for the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program or VPP; a voluntary health and safety management program whose participant worksites generally have lost time accident case rates a fraction of the national average (1989). OSHA bases its faith in safety and health management programs on years of experience evaluating workplaces and helping employers protect their workers. The agencys faith in safety and health management is bolstered by a 2004 U.S. General Accounting Office report that OSHA voluntary health and safety management program participants reported injury and illness rate reductions and improved

Nordine-19 relations between labor, management, and OSHA. Likewise in a report by the Gallup Organization, OSHA VPP participants reported sustained injury and illness rate reductions after management system implementation (Simon, Wells, and Abraham 2005). Little wonder then that OSHA urges employers to implement and maintain these programs, holds them in high esteem during compliance inspections, and often requires various program elements be implemented to abate hazards cited in enforcement actions. OSHA recommended safety and health management programs are characterized by four major elements: (1) management commitment and employee involvement, (2) worksite hazard analysis, (3) hazard prevention and control, and (4) safety and health training (1989). Within each element are opportunities for management and employee involvement in measurable ways that could be used as leading indicators or predictors of workplace safety performance. Management commitment and employee involvement begin with policies that clearly state management expectations for safety and health; define employee responsibilities; hold safety in the same regard as other business indicators such as product schedule, cost, and quality; and mandate total compliance with safety rules and practices at every level of the organization (OSHA 1989). Management also demonstrates commitment by allocating sufficient resources for the health and safety program, setting program goals and objectives, and evaluating program performance (for

Nordine-20 example: performance to program goals, scheduled worksite hazard assessments completed on time, hazard prevention and controls done in a timely manner, training completed on schedule). Supervisors demonstrate commitment by conducting regular safety inspections of their areas and correcting deficiencies, ensuring their employees receive adequate safety and health training, investigating work related accidents and illnesses, and ensuring total compliance with safety rules and procedures. Employee involvement is ensured by insisting everyone comply with all safety rules and practices, attend required safety training, participate in hazard assessments and incident investigations in their areas, and report unsafe conditions. Proactive management commitment and employee involvement actions suitable as leading safety indicators include: (1) management communication of health and safety information to employees, (2) ensuring complete compliance with safety rules and procedures, (3) management evaluation of program performance; (4) regular safety inspections of work areas, (5) correcting deficiencies found during inspections, (6) employee participation in hazard assessment activities, and (7) completion of required safety training. Effective safety and health programs are also characterized by a robust worksite hazard analysis process (OSHA 1989). Each job must be thoroughly examined and its hazards identified. Inspections must supplement the job hazard analysis process to ensure hazards missed during

Nordine-21 assessments, or newly created because of changing conditions or processes, are identified promptly. While hazard assessments and inspections must be conducted by supervisors to demonstrate management commitment to safety and health, it is critical that employees be included to make such assessments and inspections truly effective. Proactive worksite hazard analysis activities suitable as leading safety indicators include: (1) hazard assessments or analyses of all jobs within the workplace and (2) regular safety inspections of the entire workplace. The next element characterizing an effective safety and health program is hazard prevention and control (OSHA 1989). Where feasible, workplace hazards identified during assessments and inspections should be eliminated. In cases where this is not possible, means to effectively control the hazard and prevent unsafe exposure must be implemented. Similar to the worksite hazard assessment process, supervisors must be responsible for ensuring hazards are removed or effectively controlled. Management must also periodically review corrective action plans to ensure timely completion and that adequate resources have been allocated to eliminate and or control workplace hazards. Control measures (for example: safe work practices, rules and procedures, machine safeguards, personal protective equipment) must be clearly communicated to employees. Supervisors must consistently enforce control measures and discipline violators per management policy. Proactive hazard prevention and control activities

Nordine-22 suitable as leading safety indicators include: (1) correcting deficiencies identified through safety inspections and other hazard assessment activities in a timely manner, (2) management communication of hazard prevention and control measures to employees, and (3) ensuring complete compliance with safety rules and procedures. The final element of an effective management program is safety and health training (OSHA 1989). It is vital that employees and management alike receive training appropriate for the roles each plays in the safety and health program. All levels of management and employees must understand the program and their responsibilities under it. Supervisors must have sufficient safety and health training so they can easily recognize hazards when conducting assessments, inspections, and incident investigations. Employees must be trained in all hazards of their jobs and in the control measures necessary to protect themselves from harm. While supervisors are charged with making sure their employees are adequately trained in the safety aspects of their jobs, employees can be most effective trainers and should be utilized whenever possible. Proactive safety and health training activities suitable as leading safety indicators include: (1) conducting training on time per a predetermined schedule and (2) regular assessments, surveys, inspections, and or audits to gauge training efficacy. Management commitment and employee involvement, worksite hazard analysis, hazard prevention and control, and safety and health training are

Nordine-23 vital to an effective safety and health program (OSHA 1989). All levels of management and employees must be committed to the program and involved in it. Each element of the program must be implemented, nurtured, sustained, and embraced by management and employees alike. Program performance must be gauged with realistic and measurable goals and objectives supporting each element. Measuring the proactive activities associated with each program element against the expectations and requirements set forth by management provides a framework of leading safety indicators that can be used to gauge safety program performance. Recommended Framework of Leading Safety Indicators In this section, the proactive management practices and activities identified previously are adapted to form a comprehensive framework of leading safety indicators that can be used to measure, monitor, and predict safety performance. The framework is organized according to OSHA safety and health program element. How often a particular activity should be completed will depend upon various workplace factors (hazards present in the workplace, level of compliance with health and safety rules, complexity of the operation, nature of the safety climate or culture, and so forth). The minimum frequency or how often a particular activity should be completed was determined based on the OSHA VPP policies and procedures manual (OSHA 2003), the review of literature, and or professional work experiences of the author.

Nordine-24 Management commitment and employee involvement OSHA safety and health management program guideline actions suitable for use as leading safety indicators to measure management commitment and employee involvement include: (1) management communication of health and safety related information to employees, (2) ensuring complete compliance with safety rules and procedures, (3) management evaluation of program effectiveness, (4) regular safety inspections of work areas, (5) correcting deficiencies found during inspections, (6) employee participation in hazard assessment activities, and (7) completion of required safety training. Management communication of health and safety related information to employees is vital in demonstrating management commitment to workplace safety (Torp and Moen 2006; Mearns, Whitaker, and Flin 2003; Shannon et al. 1996; Simard and Marchand 1994). The leading safety indicator related to management communication measures how often managers convey health and safety related information to employees. Health and safety communication by managers means meeting periodically with their employees and reviewing relevant policies and procedures, goals and objectives, and or performance indicators. At a minimum, communication of health and safety related information by managers should occur four times per year. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of times health and safety related communication by management

Nordine-25 was required over a given period of time with the number of times it actually occurred. Ensuring everyone, managers and employees alike, comply with safety rules and procedures demonstrates management commitment to workplace safety (OToole 2002; Thompson, Hilton, and Witt 1998). The leading safety indicator related to compliance and management commitment measures how often supervisors conduct safety surveys of their areas to ensure compliance with safety related rules and practices (wearing appropriate eye protection, using required safety equipment, handling hazardous materials as trained, operating tools and machinery as prescribed, and so forth). The safety survey can be broad in scope (for example, observing compliance with several different safety rules) or targeted to gauge compliance with a specific safety rule (for example, observing how many employees are wearing protective eyewear when handling hazardous chemicals). The expectations are that safety surveys will be conducted by supervisors on a regular basis, that safety surveys will find all employees in compliance with the surveyed rule or procedure, and that supervisors will share the survey results (that is, the percentage of surveyed employees observed in compliance) with the surveyed employees. At a minimum, safety surveys should be conducted on a monthly basis. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing how many safety surveys were required over a given time period with the number of surveys actually completed.

Nordine-26 The evaluation of health and safety program performance by management demonstrates their commitment to workplace safety (Robson et al. 2007; Thompson, Hilton, and Witt 1998; Shannon et al. 1996). The leading safety indicator related to program evaluation measures how often management evaluates health and safety program performance. This leading safety indicator requires managers to review performance to health and safety program goals, objectives, and leading indicators in order to make adjustments to the program as needed to keep it on track. At a minimum, health and safety program evaluation by management should occur on a monthly basis. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of evaluations required over a given time period with the number of evaluations actually completed. Supervisors demonstrate their commitment to workplace safety by conducting regular safety inspections of their areas (Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; Simard and Marchand 1994). The leading safety indicator associated with inspections and management commitment measures how often supervisors conduct safety inspections. This leading safety indicator requires supervisors to inspect their areas for unsafe conditions, equipment, tools, machinery, behaviors, and so forth on a regular basis. At a minimum, safety inspections should be conducted on a monthly basis (OSHA 2003). This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of safety

Nordine-27 inspections required over a given time with the number of inspections actually completed. Management commitment to workplace safety is also demonstrated by correcting deficiencies found during safety inspections, safety surveys, incident investigations, and job hazard assessment activities (Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; Vredenburgh 2002). The leading safety indicator associated with addressing safety deficiencies measures the extent to which corrective actions have been applied to fix safety problems. This corrective action related leading safety indicator requires that all deficiencies noted during hazard assessment activities be addressed in a timely manner. Ideally all deficiencies will be addressed with permanent fixes or corrective action right away; in cases where this is not possible because of time, budgetary, or technical constraints, temporary or interim fixes including process shut down would be acceptable. At a minimum, all deficiencies identified during hazard assessment activities should be addressed with either permanent or interim corrective actions immediately. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of deficiencies identified over a given period of time with number of corrective actions applied. Employee participation in hazard assessment activities is vital to a successful health and safety management program (Torp and Moen 2006; OToole 2002; Bolton and Kleinstruber 2001; Shannon et al. 1996; Simard

Nordine-28 and Marchand 1994). The leading safety indicator associated with employee involvement measures how often employees participate in hazard assessment activities. This leading safety indicator requires supervisors to conduct hazard assessment activities such as safety inspections or job hazard analyses with one or more employees on a regular basis. The expectation is that supervisors will include different employees in each hazard assessment activity to ensure that all employees are involved and participate in the process. At a minimum, supervisors should include one or more employees in a hazard assessment activity on a monthly basis. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of hazard assessment activities requiring employee participation over a given time period with the number of hazard assessment activities actually completed with employee involvement. Ensuring required health and safety training is completed also demonstrates management commitment to workplace safety (Vredenburgh 2002; Simard and Marchand 1994). The leading safety indicator linked with training and management commitment measures the extent to which health and safety training has been completed. This training related leading safety indicator requires that all employees scheduled for health and safety related training receive it. The expectation is that management will use effective incentives to ensure that everyone attends required health and safety training when scheduled or attends make-up sessions. This leading safety

Nordine-29 indicator is calculated by comparing the number of employees scheduled for health and safety training over a given period of time with the number that actually attended. Worksite hazard analysis Proactive OSHA safety and health management program guideline hazard assessment activities suitable for use as leading safety indicators include: (1) hazard assessment or analysis of all jobs within the workplace and (2) regular safety inspections of the entire workplace. Effective safety and health programs are characterized by a strong job hazard analysis process (Torp and Moen 2006; Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; OToole 2002; Bolton and Kleinstruber 2001; Simard and Marchand 1994). The leading safety indicators related to the job hazard analysis process measure the extent to which all jobs within the workplace have been analyzed for hazards and how often job hazard assessments are conducted or reviewed. The first job hazard analysis indicator requires that all jobs within a workplace be analyzed or assessed for hazards. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the total number of jobs within the workplace with the number of completed job hazard assessments. The second job hazard analysis indicator requires that job hazard assessments be conducted or reviewed by supervisors on a regular basis. The expectations are that one or more employees will participate in each assessment or review, and that review of job hazard assessments will only

Nordine-30 be done once all jobs within the workplace have been analyzed for hazards (that is, job hazard assessments are conducted until all jobs have been analyzed). At a minimum, supervisors should conduct or review one job hazard assessment on a monthly basis. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of job hazard assessments or reviews required over a given period of time with the number of assessments or reviews actually completed. Regular safety inspections of the entire workplace are vital to an effective health and safety program (Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; Simard and Marchand 1994). The leading safety indicator associated with inspections and worksite hazard analysis measures the extent to which an entire worksite is inspected. This inspection related leading safety indicator requires that the entire worksite including all storage and outside areas, be inspected by supervisors on a periodic basis. At a minimum, supervisors must inspect all areas under their responsibility four times per year (OSHA 2003). This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the amount of area requiring inspection over a given period of time with the amount of area actually inspected. Hazard prevention and control Proactive OSHA safety and health management program guideline prevention and control activities suitable for use as leading safety indicators include: (1) correcting deficiencies identified through safety inspections and

Nordine-31 other hazard assessment activities in a timely manner, (2) management communication of hazard prevention and control measures to employees, and (3) ensuring complete compliance with safety rules and procedures at all levels of the organization. Completing corrective actions to address deficiencies identified during safety inspections, safety surveys, job hazard assessments, incident investigations, and other hazard assessment activities in a timely manner improves workplace safety (Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; Vredenburgh 2002). The leading safety indicator linked with inspections and hazard prevention and control measures how long it takes corrective action to be implemented once a deficiency has been identified. This corrective action related leading safety indicator requires that all deficiencies noted during hazard assessment activities be addressed in a timely manner. Ideally all deficiencies will be addressed with permanent fixes or corrective action right away; in cases where this is not possible because of time, budgetary, or technical constraints, temporary or interim fixes up to and including process shut down would be acceptable. At a minimum, all deficiencies identified during hazard assessment activities should be addressed with either permanent or interim corrective actions immediately. This leading safety indicator is calculated by averaging the amount of time elapsed between discovery of deficiencies and corrective action application over a given period of time.

Nordine-32 Management communication of hazard prevention and control measures to employees is vital to a robust hazard prevention and control process (Torp and Moen 2006; Vredenburgh 2002; Bolton and Kleinstruber 2001). The leading safety indicator associated with management communication of hazard prevention and control related information measures how often supervisors convey hazard prevention and control information to employees. This communication related leading indicator requires supervisors to clearly relate relevant safe work practices, rules and procedures, personal protective equipment requirements, and other hazard prevention and control measure information to employees on a regular basis. At a minimum, communication of hazard prevention and control measure related information should occur monthly. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of times hazard prevention and control measure related communication was required over a given time period with the number of times it actually occurred. Ensuring everyone, managers and employees alike, comply with safety rules and procedures is key to an effective hazard prevention and control process and promotes workplace safety (OToole 2002; Thompson, Hilton, and Witt 1998). The leading safety indicator related to compliance with hazard prevention and control measures uses regular safety surveys of the workplace to gauge how many employees are in compliance with safety rules and procedures. Safety surveys can be broad in scope (for example,

Nordine-33 observing compliance with several different safety rules) or targeted to measure compliance with a specific safety rule (for example, observing how many employees are wearing seatbelts while operating powered industrial trucks or forklifts). The expectations are that supervisors will conduct safety surveys on a regular basis and that survey results (that is, the percentage of surveyed employees observed in compliance) will be shared with the surveyed employees. At a minimum, safety surveys should find all employees in total compliance with the surveyed rule or procedure. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the total number of employees observed during a survey with the number of employees observed in compliance with the rule or procedure being surveyed. Safety and health training Proactive OSHA safety and health management program guideline training activities suitable for use as leading safety indicators include: (1) conducting training on time per a predetermined schedule or plan and (2) regular assessments, surveys, and or audits to gauge training efficacy. Completing health and safety related training as planned improves the safety culture or climate of an organization (Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004; Simard and Marchand 1994) and appears beneficial in reducing accident rates (Vredenburgh 2002). The leading safety indicator associated with timely training measures how often health and safety training is conducted on time according to schedule. This training related leading safety

Nordine-34 indicator requires that scheduled training take place as planned. The expectation is that management will design and follow a training schedule that includes the health and safety topics required by regulatory standards, relevant to workplace hazards, and necessary to address any training gaps identified via safety inspections, safety surveys, incident investigations, and other hazard assessment activities. At a minimum, management should provide the time and resources necessary to execute the training schedule or plan as designed. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of health and safety training sessions scheduled over a given period of time with the number of training sessions actually completed. Assessments of health and safety training effectiveness to ensure competency are associated with fewer accidents and reduced workers compensation costs (Vredenburgh 2002), and predictors of workplace safety (Flin et al. 2000). The leading safety indicator related to training effectiveness requires that management use assessments such as tests, demonstration of skills learned, focused safety surveys, inspections, and or audits to gauge training efficacy. The expectation is that every health and safety training session or class will be assessed to ensure learning actually occurred. This leading safety indicator is calculated by comparing the number of employees trained over a given period of time with the number of employees that successfully demonstrated learning through tests, quizzes,

Nordine-35 demonstration of skills learned, focused safety surveys, inspections, audits, or other assessment methods. Summary Current research on the topic of occupational health and safety clearly supports the use of management systems to improve workplace safety. Proactive management practices such as providing employees health and safety training, assessing training effectiveness, communicating hazards, addressing safety issues quickly, and encouraging employee participation in safety related activities appear beneficial in reducing injury rates. Clearly demonstrated management commitment seems to have a positive impact on employee perception of the safety management process, and there appears to be a strong causal relationship between a positive change in safety perception and a reduction in work related accidents. Critical features of a positive safety culture (management commitment and employee involvement) appear easily demonstrated and promoted through risk assessments, inspections, audits, training, hazard reporting, completing corrective actions, and similar actions. Finally, there is evidence that safety results can be improved by using a proactive approach that bases improvements on data generated before an accident or illness occurs. The research examined in the course of this project however, offered few concrete examples or methods of proactively measuring and monitoring health and safety program performance. This project addresses this gap and

Nordine-36 adds value by providing a comprehensive framework of leading safety indicators that can be used to proactively measure and monitor safety program performance, demonstrate management commitment to worker safety, improve the safety climate of the workplace, and correct safety program deficiencies before they turn into costly accidents. Organized by the major elements of the OSHA safety and health management program guidelines, the leading safety indicators outlined in this project effectively measure all the proactive aspects of a safety and health management system and are tabulated in Table 1. Management commitment and employee involvement related leading safety indicators gauge (1) management communication, (2) compliance with rules and procedures, (3) program evaluations, (4) safety inspections, (5) corrective actions, (6) employee participation in hazard assessment activities, and (7) completion of required safety training. Worksite hazard assessment related leading safety indicators gauge the extent of job hazard assessments and safety inspections. Hazard prevention and control related leading safety indicators measure corrective action implementation, management communication of hazard prevention and control measures to employees, and compliance with safety rules and procedures at all levels of the organization. Safety and health training related leading safety indicators monitor adherence to training schedules and training effectiveness.

Nordine-37 Combined, these leading safety indicators form a comprehensive framework that can proactively monitor health and safety program performance. Table 1. Framework of Leading Safety Indicators
OSHA program element Management commitment and employee involvement Leading safety indicator Managers communicate health and safety related information to employees on a regular basis. Measures how often safety related communication occurs compared with the requirement set by management (for example, health and safety information must be communicated to employees at least four times each year). Compliance with safety related rules and procedures are surveyed on a regular basis. Measures how often safety surveys are conducted in accordance with management expectations (for example, safety surveys must be conducted on a monthly basis). Health and safety management program effectiveness is evaluated by management on a regular basis. Measures how often program evaluation occurs (for example, each month). Safety inspections of work areas are conducted on a regular basis. Measures the number of safety inspections conducted (for example, safety inspections must be performed monthly). Corrective actions are applied to address identified deficiencies. Measures the extent to which corrective actions are applied (for example, all deficiencies need addressed by corrective action). Regular employee participation in hazard assessment activities. Measures how often employees are involved in the hazard assessment process (for example, on a monthly basis). Employees attend safety and health training. Measures the extent to which employees attend safety and health related training (for example, all workers must attend required training). Worksite hazard analysis Jobs within the workplace are assessed for hazards. Measures the extent to job hazard analyses are conducted (for example, all jobs). Job hazard analysis conducted or reviewed with employees on a regular basis. Measures how often employees are involved in the job hazard analysis process (for example, on a monthly basis). Safety inspections of the entire workplace are conducted on a regular basis. Measures the extent of the inspection process (for example, entire worksite shall be inspected four times per year). Hazard prevention and control Corrective actions implemented in a timely manner. Measures the time it takes to apply corrective actions (for example, immediately). Hazard prevention and control information is communicated to employees on a regular basis. Measures how often prevention and control information is conveyed (for example, monthly). Employee compliance with safety related rules and procedures. Measures the extent of conformance (for example, complete) Safety and health training Health and safety training conducted according to schedule. Measures adherence to the schedule (for example, on time). Health and safety training effectiveness. Measures the extent to which training objectives are attained (for example, trainees must demonstrate learning or knowledge transfer occurred). Sources: OSHA (1989) and Recommended Leading Safety Indicators discussion in Results section.

Nordine-38 Clearly, the preferred method of managing the output of a process is by monitoring, controlling, and adjusting its inputs. The leading safety indicators outlined in this project allow an employer to measure, monitor, and control the proactive activities or process inputs associated with positive safety program outcomesfewer occupational injuries and illnesses. Areas for Further Research This project provides a template of leading safety indicators that may be successfully employed to monitor safety program effectiveness, predict workplace safety performance, and ultimately prevent occupational injuries and illnesses. Certainly, studying the effectiveness of utilizing leading safety indicators to improve injury and illness rates seems a logical area for future research. Other areas for further research include verifying that the leading safety indicators accurately reflect safety program performance, examining the relationship between leading safety indicator performance and employee perceptions of safety culture, and determining which leading safety indicators have the greatest impact on occupational injury and illness rate reductions.

Nordine-39 References Asfahl, C. Ray. 2004. Recordkeeping. Industrial safety and health management, 17-30. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bolton, Fredric N., and James F. Kleinstruber. 2001. A perspective on the effectiveness of risk assessment by first-line workers and supervisors in a safety management system. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7 (7):1777-1786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /20018091095384. Choudhry, Rafiq M., Dongping Fang, and Sherif Mohamed. 2006. The nature of safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Safety Science (November 15). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.003. Flin, R., K. Mearns, P. OConnor, and R. Bryden. 2000. Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Safety Science 34:177-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6. Herrero, Susana G., Miguel A. M. Saldaa, Miguel A. Manzanedo del Campo, and Dale O. Ritzel. 2002. From the traditional concept of safety management to safety integrated with quality. Journal of Safety Research 33:1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)000087. Kjelln, Urban, Karsten Boe, and Hvard Lge Hagen. 1997. Economic effects of implementing internal control of health, safety and environment: A retrospective case study of an aluminum plant. Safety

Nordine-40 Science 27 (2-3):99-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09257535(97)00066-0. Mearns, Kathryn, Sean M. Whitaker, and Rhonda Flin. 2003. Safety climate, safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Safety Science 41:641-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016 /S0925-7535(02)00011-5. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2003. Voluntary protection programs (VPP): Policies and procedures manual. OSHA directive no. CSP 03-01-002. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_ document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=2976. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1989. Safety and health program guidelines; issuance of voluntary guidelines. Federal Register no. 54:3904-3916, January 26. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb /owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=12909. OToole, Michael. 2002. The relationship between employees perceptions of safety and organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research 33:231243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00014-2. Robson, Lynda S., Judith A. Clarke, Kimberly Cullen, Amber Bielecky, Colette Severin, Philip L. Bigelow, Emma Irvin, Anthony Culyer, and Quenby Mahood. 2007. The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management interventions: A systematic review. Safety Science 45:329-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.07.003.

Nordine-41 Shannon, Harry S., Vivienne Walters, Wayne Lewchuk, Jack Richardson, Lea Ann Moran, Ted Haines, and Dave Verma. 1996. Workplace organizational correlates of lost-time accident rates in manufacturing. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29:258-268. http://0www3.interscience.wiley.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/cgibin/fulltext/66803/PDFSTART. Shikdar, Ashraf A., and Naseem M. Sawaqed. 2003. Worker productivity, and occupational health and safety issues in selected industries. Computers & Industrial Engineering 45:563-572. http://dx.doi.org /10.1016/S0360-8352(03)00074-3. Simard, Marcel, and Alain Marchand. 1994. The behavior of first-line supervisors in accident prevention and effectiveness in occupational safety. Safety Science 17:169-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/09257535(94)90010-8. Simon, Alison, Jim Wells, and Sameer Abraham. 2005. Evaluation of the Voluntary Protection Program findings report. Washington, DC: Gallup Organization. http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/gallup_vpp_eval.html. Thompson, Richard C., Thomas F. Hilton, and L. Alan Witt. 1998. Where the rubber meets the shop floor: A confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety. Journal of Safety Research 29 (1):1524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(97)00025-X.

Nordine-42 Torp, S., and B. E. Moen. 2006. The effects of occupational health and safety management on work environment and health: A prospective study. Applied Ergonomics 37:775-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo .2005.11.005. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2004. Workplace safety and health: OSHAs voluntary compliance strategies show promising results, but should be fully evaluated before they are expanded. GAO-04-378. http://www .gao.gov/new.items/d04378.pdf. Vecchio-Sadus, Angelica M., and Steven Griffiths. 2004. Marketing strategies for enhancing safety culture. Safety Science 42:601-619. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016 /j.ssci.2003.11.001. Vredenburgh, Alison G. 2002. Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective in reducing employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research 33:259-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00224375(02)00016-6.