Safety Connect Leading and Lagging Indicators скачать в хорошем качестве

Safety Connect Leading and Lagging Indicators

Leading and Lagging Indicators and Their Link to Proactive and Reactive Monitoring Monitoring is a key element of an effective health and safety management system. It allows an organisation to understand both current performance and past outcomes. Two main types of performance indicators are used: leading indicators and lagging indicators, which directly relate to proactive (active) monitoring and reactive monitoring. Leading indicators are proactive measures that reflect activities undertaken before an accident or loss occurs. They focus on the presence of controls, safe behaviours and the strength of risk management systems. Examples include the number of workplace inspections completed, rates of PPE compliance, percentage of workers trained, near-miss reporting levels and safety observation scores. These indicators are considered positive when they show strong preventive activity, such as high training completion or frequent near-miss reporting (which indicates an open reporting culture). Negative leading indicators, such as low inspection rates or no near-miss reports for several months, suggest that hazards may not be identified early, supervision may be weak and the workplace may be at higher risk of future incidents. Lagging indicators are reactive measures which show the outcomes of safety performance after an event has occurred. They include accident statistics, Lost Time Injury (LTI) rates, equipment damage, occupational illness cases and first aid records. Positive lagging indicators show improvement, such as a reduction in incidents or declining absenteeism related to work. Negative lagging indicators—such as a rise in injuries or repeated property damage—indicate failures in controls, inadequate supervision, poor training or underlying system weaknesses. These indicators are closely linked to monitoring activities. Proactive (active) monitoring includes inspections, audits, behavioural observations and checks carried out before work starts. The data gathered from these activities becomes the organisation’s leading indicators. For example, daily scaffold inspections on a construction site—if consistently completed—generate a strong leading indicator showing that risks are being controlled before they escalate. In contrast, reactive monitoring investigates events that have already happened, such as accidents, near misses or equipment failures. The outcomes of these activities form the organisation’s lagging indicators. For example, if a warehouse records multiple forklift collisions, the resulting rise in injury and property-damage statistics becomes a negative lagging indicator that highlights weaknesses in supervision, layout, or operator training. Using both types of indicators together provides a balanced picture of safety performance. Leading indicators help predict and prevent incidents, while lagging indicators help identify root causes and areas for improvement. Organisations that actively monitor both are better able to maintain strong safety standards, reduce risks and continually improve their health and safety management systems.