Annual Safety
Management
Review
Monitoring
Safety
Performance
Management
of Change
Corrective
Action
Management
Employee
Reporting of
Hazards
Incident
Reporting and
Investigation
Hazard
Recognition and
Risk Assessment
Employee
Engagement and
Consultation
Manager and
Supervisor
Safety Training
Optimized
Use of Safety
Committees
Senior
Leadership
Commitment
Senior
Leadership Expectations
60.1%
feel senior leadership defines, documents, and communicates safety roles and responsibilities to all supervisory and management personnel.
What we see:
Companies’ safety roles and responsibilities have been documented at a high level — for example, in a safety policy — but with little detail or guidance.
Safety roles and responsibilities are clearly conveyed by senior leadership to all employees.
There is a high level of awareness and understanding throughout the organization.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Management conducts an annual review that focuses on results achieved against goals set (leading and lagging indicators), incident trends, self-audit results, and more.
There is collaboration with outside experts to gain an independent, third-party view of the system, which can accelerate system improvements and improve overall outcomes.
Information is used to set new objectives, targets, and goals for the next time period that are fully integrated into other operational metrics.
Action plans are created to support objectives, targets, and goals.
Best practices of leading companies include:
There is typically no formalized plan for conducting a critical review of the safety system, including senior leadership sign-off. When it comes to protecting people, it’s worth investing more formal effort, on a more regular basis, and starting with a current to future state analysis to ensure the safety system is optimized to achieve expected safety results.
What we see:
feel that management does not have a prescribed yearly, formal or informal meeting to address the overall safety management system or review safety results and establish new goals. However, they do not necessarily contemplate activity-based metrics for the entire workforce to engage.
54.3%
Managers and supervisors have a mix of mostly leading metrics and one or two lagging indicators.
Action plans address negative safety performance trends in real time.
Metrics at the frontline employee level are all activity-based or leading.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Performance indicators submitted to management often show no evidence of being used during performance appraisals or improvement planning. Additionally, metrics geared towards senior leadership are lagging in nature, which does not allow for timely action or intervention, and are often misunderstood by employees.
What we see:
say that they measure lagging indicators and monitor safety performance on a regular basis, but metrics are often not individualized.
55.4%
Completion of a safety review is required when any new workplace equipment, processes, or materials are being considered.
Risk issues identified during the safety review are resolved promptly and approval prior to implementation of corrective actions is documented.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Change is a constant at most organizations. However, there is often tension with safety involvement, as any additional steps are perceived as delaying progress. Without safety’s early involvement, injuries, penalties, and additional (avoidable) costs often are the consequences.
What we see:
believe there is no written procedure requiring a safety review prior to changes in equipment, processes, or materials. Often the review occurs after the change has been made.
57.4%
Information about corrective actions is cascaded throughout the workplace so all employees can track progress on improvements and senior management’s commitment.
Target completion dates are established based on level of risk.
Corrective actions generated by safety audits, accident investigations, risk assessments, and employee concerns are tracked.
Responsibilities for achieving results are clearly defined and reviewed regularly.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Corrective actions are at times informal and are often not completed in a timely manner, while decisions may be based on budget availability as opposed to risk severity.
What we see:
feel corrective action is not optimally managed through a combination of the work order system and the safety committee, or some other mix of functions. While serious safety issues may be addressed quickly, corrective actions for less immediate hazards may be delayed. This is concerning as 52% feel employees are reporting hazards, but these may go uncorrected and discourage future reporting.
50%
A visual system is established where an employee can submit a concern/complaint that is then directed to the appropriate management personnel for review.
Concerns/complaints are responded to in a reasonable time frame and communicated back to the originator.
Targets are set to encourage reporting.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Employee reporting of hazards goes hand-in-hand with good corrective action management. A lack of feedback results in a higher likelihood of employees not reporting hazards. Therefore, having a dedicated process to track corrective actions is a key component of the feedback loop.
What we see:
feel that there is at least one “safety suggestion box” for employees to submit a concern anonymously, but there is usually no formal process for a response back from senior management.
52.7%
A written procedure that outlines reporting requirements, investigation procedures, and roles and responsibilities has been established.
Supervisors lead the investigation process.
All incidents are investigated regardless of severity.
Senior leadership signs off/approves final reports.
The process serves to prevent future incidents and not predominantly as a disciplinary exercise.
Best practices of leading companies include:
While most companies have an incident investigation plan in place, the root cause is often employee error. However, often many causal factors contribute to employee injuries.
What we see:
indicate they have a robust incident reporting and investigation process.
63.2%
An established formal risk assessment process utilizes results to train employees on safe work methods and continuously improve safety.
All operations are assessed and reassessed at a documented frequency.
All findings from risk assessments are addressed in a timely manner.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Hazard identification and risk assessment are key to the success of safety management systems. Yet operational risks are often unclear due to the lack of a working risk register documenting hazards and risks and their respective corrective actions.
What we see:
scored themselves unfavorable in identifying, ranking, and mitigating hazards properly, despite a written procedure for analyzing jobs and tasks.
52.7%
Senior management creates multiple outlets for employee involvement in safety-related activities.
Employees are able to participate on ergonomic review teams, develop policies, complete job safety analyses and risk assessments, join the emergency response team, perform hazard inspections, and more.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Often the safety committee is the only means for employee involvement in safety processes and employees are rarely asked to participate in additional safety activities related to their work areas or skillsets.
What we see:
feel systems are in place to engage and consult with employees in order to improve participation in safety efforts, but a similar number feel they may be lacking.
50%
A mandatory safety training curriculum is provided to newly hired or newly appointed managers and supervisors.
Scorecards are used to measure curriculum effectiveness and manager/supervisor engagement.
Responsibilities and procedures for all parties are clearly defined.
Best practices of leding companies include:
Managers and supervisors lack specific safety training and tend to favor optimizing productivity and efficiency over safety. This fact is particularly concerning as this group typically is responsible for translating senior leadership safety objectives and goals to frontline employees.
What we see:
feel unfavorable towards manager and supervisor safety training, as it is often infrequent and focused on standard or basic compliance training.
51.6%
The safety committee is inclusive and members have well-defined roles.
Members are educated on hazard recognition and risk assessment.
Meeting numbers, timing, and frequency are clear.
Meeting minutes and actions taken are posted and accessible for everyone.
Correlations between meeting minutes and positive safety program improvements are evident.
Best practices of leading companies include:
Safety committees may have limited representation from across levels and departments, keep inconsistent meeting minutes that are rarely shared with employees, and meet infrequently with large gaps at key times.
What we see:
do not feel the safety committee is optimized with sufficient representation, lacks a standardized agenda and meeting minutes, and does not track corrective actions related to safety concerns/issues.
54.7%
Senior leadership should express its support and set clear expectations that are understood by employees.
Employees can identify when leadership supports safety efforts.
Best practices of leading companies include:
There often is a significant gap in senior management’s perception of its commitment to safety and frontline employees’ views.
What we see:
feel that senior leadership is committed to employees’ safety and health and is meaningfully involved on a regular basis.
73.6%
