Conducting preventative maintenance on a car is much more effective and less costly than making repairs after it breaks down. The same goes for occupational safety. Unfortunately, for many years, employers have used lagging indicators as their safety strategy. With a lagging indicator, employers collect data after accidents or injuries occur and prescribe reactive safety measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. 


Why wait to see whether your program is effective? Shouldn’t the preventative maintenance philosophy for auto repair apply to job safety as well? Many companies are adopting that preventative philosophy and are using leading indicators as a base to prevent future incidents.

Most experts believe every company’s safety program should incorporate leading indicators as a best practice. According to a white paper developed by the Edison Electric Institute Occupational Safety and Health Committee, “When developed properly, leading indicators may have a direct relationship to performance and thus provide valid mitigation actions. With the institution of leading indicators, modifications to operations can be made before injuries occur.”


The research this paper was based on shows that employers that track leading indicators have significantly lower injury and illness rates than those that don’t. For example, companies tracking safety observations had an average days away, restricted or transferred (DART) rate of 1.17 and a recordable incident rate (RIR) of 2.02. Companies not tracking observations had an average DART rate of 1.74 and an RIR of 2.76. Companies tracking near-misses or close calls had a DART rate of 1.06 and an RIR of 1.87. Companies not tracking near-misses or close calls had a DART rate of 1.44 and RIR of 2.51.


It is important that employers choose the specific leading indicators that work best for them, as they vary between industries and companies. Training, assessments, inspections and audits, hazard and near-miss reporting, communication, resources, and perception surveys should be considered base measurements. These leading indicators can be found in the committee white paper and an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) review of its voluntary protection programs.


When it comes to safety, training is one of the most valuable and effective tools. Properly training employees results in drastic reductions in injuries and illnesses. Therefore, the more hours of training that an employee receives and the more people trained, the safer the work environment.


Measuring training as a leading indicator involves more than recording attendance. It also should factor in effectiveness. A successful training program should focus on exceeding minimal compliance requirements. It will include hazard recognition, current hazards and the actions needed to avoid them. Ineffective training cannot be used as a leading measure.


Assessments, inspections and audits may be the most effective of all leading indicators. One method companies often use to perform assessments is testing trainees to determine information retention. This also helps measure the overall employee attitude and safety culture.


However, assessments, inspections or audits commonly involve a safety professional walking the job site, making observations and collecting data. This may include interviews with employees or identifying electrical hazards; slip, trip and fall hazards; and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Caution should be used in making observations. The focus needs to be on worker behavior rather than visible environmental conditions. Corrective measures address the worker’s actions necessary to ensuring their safety, which may be the steps they take to eliminate or mitigate a physical hazard.


It is one thing to report injuries and illnesses and another to collect data on near-miss incidents. Although some employers may define near-misses as lagging indicators because they occurred in the past, they are highly effective in preventing future incidents. As a result, many safety experts encourage employers to implement a near-miss or close-call program. 


In addition, hazard reporting is an excellent way of identifying and addressing safety issues before they happen. Companies that have good reporting cultures tend to be among the safest work places, largely because this allows them to correct hazards before any employees get hurt.


In an effort to create a strong reporting culture, companies may consider implementing a reward program. However, rewarding employees for zero incidents can lead those workers to conceal legitimate hazards for fear of missing out on a reward. For this reason, OSHA encourages the recognition of proactivity but frowns on incentive programs associated with injury reporting. If an employer is going to use an incentive program, it may want to consider rewarding employees that come forward to report a legitimate hazard. Reporting hazards or near-misses may have a positive impact on workplace safety.


Anytime such reporting programs are in place, the effectiveness needs to be assessed. Adding up hazards and near-misses aren’t enough. Someone needs to track the progress on resolved issues brought up by the reports. Therefore, a reporting program and corrective-action program need to work together. Both are considered key performance metrics to support a sustainable safety culture.


Communication is key, too. Jonathan Thomas, director of safety management solutions for the National Safety Council, said: “Communication at a workplace—including internal mailings, statements or toolbox talks—can be an important leading indicator, as well. This includes safety meetings. Organizations that have frequent safety meetings, as well as good attendance and participation, have safer work environments than organizations that do not. The more employees attend safety meetings, and the more frequently they attend, the more they’re learning how to behave safely and work safely.”


Having the appropriate resources for safety is also a significant leading indicator. Resources are measured by calculating the amount of time, funding and personnel dedicated to safety. It can shed light on the breadth of management’s commitment to workplace safety as a whole. Consider whether the appropriate type of PPE is being ordered or on hand and if tools and machinery are properly kept up and maintained.


The final leading indicator is perception surveys. 


According to Christopher Janicak, a professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Safety Sciences, “As a leading indicator, perception surveys can be considered an umbrella that encompasses the other indicators.” 


These surveys offer employers feedback from the field that identify strengths and weaknesses that potentially exist in the company’s safety culture. A perception survey may ask employees to list specific hazards, gaps in training, inadequate PPE or how they might react in a hypothetical scenario. Employers can then use the data to improve safety.


Leading implementation


When implementing a leading indicator program, it is important to develop a long-term plan that can be constantly improved upon and sustained. Understand that the program must start at the top, with management and safety professionals working together to create and establish program goals and data-collection methods and figuring how to communicate that information to employees. Service providers and software solutions can help businesses implement a leading indicator program by consistently identifying trends.


Good communication and a consistent approach to reporting are imperative, as is having easy-to-understand safety metrics. The implementation of a successful leading indicator program may result in improved injury rates, reduced workers’ compensation claims, and a better and safer overall work environment.


Often, employers attempt to establish a leading indicator program that does not work the way they anticipated. This happens when they choose indicators that are not right for their company. In some cases, employees are trained to perform unsafe tasks. For example, training sessions will not solve a problem that requires an engineering solution. It is important to determine the root cause of problems and develop specific strategies to address them.


Companies should also consider how many leading indicators they can successfully track. Attempting to track too many can be counterproductive. Measuring three to five leading indicators seems to be the optimum number. This does not mean you should restrict the number of proactive measures you implement. This optimum is more about how much can be measured effectively to improve a safety program.


Implementing and tracking leading indicators will demonstrate a company’s commitment to protecting worker safety and will establish a strong safety culture. By gaining an understanding of leading indicators and their effect on safety, companies can strengthen existing programs and build or reinforce their safety culture to benefit both the employer and employees.