Authors:
Ekaterina Zhiteneva, GRK Bystrinskoye LLC
Yulia Repina, GRK Bystrinskoye LLC
Andrey Shlapak, GRK Bystrinskoye LLC
Since April 2024, a rating system for structural divisions has been implemented at Bystrinsky GOK. The monthly occupational safety rating is not just a list of leaders and outsiders. It is a tool that allows for an objective assessment of each division's efforts in creating safe working conditions.
The goal is not punishment, but development and engagement in safety issues from managers to workers, with a long-term view of transitioning to a proactive level of safety culture development.
The expected effect is a fair assessment of each division's contribution to safety improvements.
In this article, we will provide specific criteria and the scoring methodology. You can adapt this methodology and these approaches to suit your needs based on the practices and tools you use.
When developing the rating criteria, it was important for us to consider the opinions of the divisions. To do this, we conducted a survey asking just one question: "Which indicator do you think shows the real level of safety at the sites?". By doing so, we emphasized the importance and involvement of the divisions in creating the rating, and also "fueled" interest in the new tool.
When creating the rating calculation methodology, the key principles were:
Why is balance important?
Traditionally, safety has been measured by the number of incidents — these are reactive indicators. They show what has already happened. Zero injuries is an excellent goal, but if it is the sole measure of success, it devalues the efforts invested, can lead to the concealment of minor incidents, and does not reflect actual preventive work. Furthermore, if evaluated solely on reactive indicators, large divisions with a high headcount and hazardous operations will find themselves in a more difficult situation, and the assessment will not always be objective.
Proactive indicators, on the other hand, measure efforts aimed at preventing incidents. They show how actively a division implements improvements, identifies, and eliminates risks before they lead to trouble.
By combining both types of indicators, we get a complete picture: not just "how many failures were there?", but also "how strong is our prevention system?".
Evaluation Criteria
The rating is calculated by the HSE department in collaboration with division managers. The rating is compiled at the end of each month based on a weighted system of adding/subtracting points across fifteen criteria in six evaluation blocks.
See the evaluation criteria in the file attached to the article.
How to read the rating?
The rating leaders are divisions that not only have no serious incidents but also demonstrate high activity in prevention. They conduct many observations, undergo training, and correct shortcomings.
Divisions at the bottom of the list may have no incidents, but their proactive work is not being carried out to its full potential.
The rating is primarily a tool for motivating and rewarding the best divisions. Long-term and sustainable results are important to us, and as a reward, the TOP-3 best divisions receive a bonus based on their average rating over 6 months and 12 months. This bonus is earmarked: 80% can only be spent on HSE initiatives, and 20% is used to reward the most active employees.
What initiatives can the bonus be spent on? For example, purchasing special fixtures and tools for safer work or to minimize manual labor, or PPE not included in the standard norms (e.g., t-shirts, insulated vests, or more expensive models of safety glasses), visual materials for briefings, etc.
We urge all managers and employees to perceive this rating not as a tool for finding someone to blame, but as a tool for improvement.
Conclusion
Over 1.5 years at Bystrinsky GOK, the average rating increased by 47%, and the number of incidents decreased by 30%. We managed to improve:
The most valuable outcome is that we have engaged the vast majority of division managers. They compete, propose new solutions, and collect and promote ideas from the workforce. And this is exactly what we were hoping for.
The transition to a balanced assessment system is an important step in the development of our safety culture. We are moving from passive compliance with rules to the active co-creation of an environment where every employee feels responsible not only for their own safety but also for the safety of their colleagues.