Implementation of Proactive HSE Indicators

From Reactive to Proactive: The Evolution of Safety Indicators

Traditional reactive indicators in occupational safety, such as LTIFR (Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate), have long remained the primary tool for assessing safety. However, practice shows that focusing exclusively on the statistics of past incidents has its limitations. The presentation details the experience of transitioning from a reactive model to the implementation of proactive indicators aimed at preventing injuries.

The speaker analyzes a situation where achieving the target values of reactive indicators becomes a "comfort zone" for the enterprise, failing to reflect the real level of safety and not stimulating further improvements. This leads to the need to find new tools capable of engaging personnel and management in the process of continuous improvement of the HSE management system.

Development and Structure of a Proactive Indicator

Creating an effective proactive indicator requires a careful approach to selecting its components. Within the framework of the presented project, the working group focused on existing procedures to avoid rejection by the personnel. The key principle was the simplicity of calculation formulas and the transparency of the monitoring system.

The indicator, initially called the "openness indicator" and later renamed "injury severity prevention," included several important blocks:

• Motivational component: accounting for improvement suggestions from employees, which stimulates their active participation in identifying and eliminating risks.
• Engagement in safety culture: assessing personnel participation in various events (training, webinars, safety dialogues), which contributes to the formation of a conscious attitude towards occupational safety.
• HSE Management System (HSEMS) procedures: recording micro-injuries and unsafe acts. The speaker demonstrates by example that attention to these aspects allows identifying systemic problems before they lead to serious incidents.
• Occupational risk management: transitioning from formal risk assessment within the framework of special assessment of working conditions to identifying operational risks during daily work (walkthroughs, inspections).

Overcoming Challenges and Implementation Results

The implementation of new indicators inevitably faces difficulties. One of the main problems was the low initial engagement of the management team. To solve this task, regular monitoring of indicators was organized with the presentation of results to top management. This helped draw attention to the problems and stimulate managers to take active steps.

Setting a proactive indicator in the KPI cards of the management team yielded a significant effect. Personnel learned to work with new tools, and managers received a real incentive to develop a safety culture. An important stage was the evolution of the indicator itself: the transition from quantitative metrics (chasing the number of suggestions or identified unsafe acts) to qualitative assessments (quality of suggestions, absence of similar risks, implementation of measures).

What you will learn from this webinar:

• Why the traditional LTIFR indicator can become an obstacle to the development of a safety culture?
• How to develop the structure of a multi-component proactive indicator based on existing procedures?
• What tools help engage management and line personnel in working with proactive indicators?
• How to avoid a formal approach and the pursuit of quantitative results when assessing safety?
• What methods of non-material motivation work effectively to increase employee engagement?