Strong support was found for the corporate disclosure of OHS outcomes (i.e. fatality, injury and illness data) with 97% of respondents indicating the disclosure of outcome data was at least important, and over 69% indicating disclosure was either extremely important or very important. Analysis by stakeholder group revealed that although no stakeholder rated disclosure of OHS outcomes as unimportant, regulators were least likely to rate disclosure as extremely or very important (42.9%). This is possibly because employers already report serious injury and illness outcomes to regulators as they occur. As expected, shareholders, business owners and then unions were most likely to see the public disclosure of OHS outcomes as extremely important. Employees were most undecided, although this was only a small percentage (less than 6%). These results are summarised in Table 5-2.
Stakeholder Attitudes to OHS Outcome Information Extremely or
Very important Important
Total important Undecided Not important By Stakeholder Group Owners 100.0% 0.0 % 100.0 % 0 % 0 % Unions 85.2% 11.1 % 96.3 % 3.7 % 0 % Managers 69.6 % 28.3 % 97.9 % 2.2 % 0 % Employees 61.9 % 32.4 % 94.3 % 5.9 % 0 % Academics 50.0 % 50.0 % 100.0 % 0 % 0 % Regulators 42.9 % 57.1 % 100.0 % 0 % 0 % By OHS Outcome Fatality 85.0% 15.0 % 100.0 % 0 % 0 % Injury 84.0% 16.0 % 100.0 % 0 % 0 % Illness 80.0% 20.0 % 100.0 % 0 % 0 %
Table 5-2: Stakeholder attitudes to OHS outcome disclosures
Although 100% of respondents indicated that the disclosure of work-related fatalities, injuries and illnesses are important (see Table 5-2), some questioned the benefit to be gained from differentiating between injury and illness outcomes given both are work-related (S2, A3, M28). In addition to total OHS outcomes, stakeholders were also
keen to see separate data presented for both employees and sub-contractors so users could “compare 'apples with apples' for firms that outsource and transfer their risks to others” (M28). This is consistent with the requirement to report outcomes for sub-contractors articulated in the GRI mining sector supplement (as noted in Chapter 2). Strong support was also evident for data relating to categories of serious injury to be provided in addition to, not instead of (M28), total outcomes. These are illustrated in Figure 5-10.
Perceived importance of reporting OHS outcome data
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FATALITY MEASURES SEVERITY MEASURES - Permanent disability - Temporary disability - Medical treatment
- First aid RESPONSE MEASURES - Lost time incidents - Recordable incidents RECURRING INJURY % of R e s ponde nt s Very important Important Undecided Not important
Figure 5-10: Stakeholder attitudes to the disclosure of workplace outcomes
Of the various sub-categories of OHS outcomes, respondents were most keen to see data reflecting work-related fatalities, with 100% indicating fatality disclosure as important. A greater proportion of respondents identified the disclosure of individual severity indicators of permanent disability (76%) and temporary disability (68%) more important than response-based indicators of LTI (50%) and recordable injury (55%). This was consistent with expectations drawn from the literature (see section 2.2.1), although contradicted the GRI’s recommendations for the disclosure to stakeholders of response-based not severity-based injury information (see section 2.3.2).
When asked to rank the top four most important outcome indicator disclosures, 98.6% of respondents included ‘severity indicators’ compared to only 40.9% including ‘response indicators’. The disclosure of fatality outcomes, however, was placed second to severity measures of injury when ranked in order of importance (see below). This is possibly because the incidence of work-related fatality compared to the incidence of work-related injury is relatively rare in Australian workplaces. These results are summarised in Table 5-3.
Rank OHS outcome KPIs
% of respondents ranking this item MOST important
% of respondents ranking this item in
the top 4 % of respondents agreeing disclosure is important 1 Measures of work-related fatality 50.0% A 82.8% D 100%
2 Severity measures of injury
(eg PD, TD, MTI, FAI) 20.5%
B
98.6% E 93.4%
3 Measures of recurring injuries 25.9% 82.8% 92.6%
4 Severity measures of illness 0.0% 77.2% na
5 Response measures of injury
(e.g. LTI) 0.9%
C
40.9% F 77.9%
6 Response measures of illness 0.9% 13.0% na
Table 5-3: Stakeholder ranking of OHS outcome disclosure KPIs
Table 5-4 provides a breakdown by stakeholder group of responses for items identified A to F in the table above. This reveals that across all stakeholder groups, except shareholders, the proportion of respondents prioritising severity (impairment) measures is more than double those prioritising response (lost time) measures. In contrast, the equal preference of shareholders for both severity and response measures confirms their interest in both the social and the financial consequences of OHS. These findings are summarised below.
% of Respondents
Most important outcome data
Listed in Top four most important outcome data
Measures Fatality Severity
(i.e. PD TD)
Response
(i.e. LTI RI) Fatality
Severity
(i.e. PD TD)
Response
(i.e. LTI RI)
Employees 53.3 % 16.7 % 0 % 86.7 % 96.7 % 36.7 % Regulators 66.7 % 0 % 0 % 83.0 % 100.0 % 16.7 % Unions 48.0 % 16.0 % 0 % 80.0 % 84.0 % 40.0 % Managers 42.9 % 34.3 % 2.9 % 71.4 % 95.0 % 42.5 % Consultants 62.5 % 12.5 % 0 % 100.0 % 87.5 % 37.5 % Shareholders / owners 66.7 % 0 % 0 % 66.7 % 50.0 % 50.0 % Academics 40.0 % 20.0 % 0 % 75.0 % 100.0 % 25.0 % Total 50.0 A 20.5 B 0.9 C 82.8 D 98.6E 40.9 F
Table 5-4: Comparison of preferences for outcome KPIs (by stakeholder)
As illustrated in Table 5-4, the disclosure of data relating to recurring injuries, or those injuries caused by previously identified risks, was also rated as very important to respondents. Although recurring injuries were acknowledged to be “difficult to monitor and prove” (S1), their presentation was nevertheless suggested to be “highly educative” (U23) and “very embarrassing to the company but a strong stimulus to
improving OHS results” (C1). A number of respondents recognised that admitting a known risk had caused an incident both highlighted accountability for a breakdown in governance and could also expose companies to prosecution for knowingly failing to provide a safe workplace (M23, U23). Importantly, one regulator observed:
Where the organisation becomes aware of a risk or has accepted a risk rather than eliminate it, then they have a responsibility to report [the implications of] that risk to its workers (R7).
Although one respondent suggested measures of minor (e.g. first aid) injury or near miss deserved “greater emphasis” because they demonstrate the existence of risks that may lead to more serious levels of damage (U20), there was generally less support for the disclosure of medical treatment, first aid, and LTIs (see Table 5-4). Instead, respondents emphasised the need to focus attention on fatal and permanent disabilities (for example, E7, M21) and recurring injuries (M21, U20) observing:
The other ratings are dangerous because they provide an emphasis in other areas lessening the continual need to focus on the main causes of injury which would be prevalent in that workplace (U20).
Furthermore, a number of respondents identified the need for “detail to go with the numbers” (for example, U27) to assist reporters to “demonstrate commitment to continual improvement in OHS performance” (C9, M29, E38), explain changes in the level of risk (E2, U22), and reduce the potential for metrics to be misinterpreted by their audience (E10). One respondent suggested:
Numbers and rates need to be backed up with words to explain their meaning or significance. It may be necessary to explain trends over time with some informed discussion. For example, Increased reporting of near misses could mean better safety culture – i.e. people are willing to report issues or it could be that there are just more problems (E10).
Supporting these comments was a strong demand for discussion of circumstances around fatality and serious injury (95.8% of respondents agreed, 0.8% disagreed) and for disclosure of those steps, if any, taken to prevent reoccurrences (M32, M21).
When there has been a fatal accident the company needs to learn from this and the investigation needs to address every level of responsibility within the organisation and take remedial action to ensure all failing systems that led to the incident have been properly addressed to prevent a re-occurrence (M40).
Transparency in discussing circumstances surrounding serious incidents [is a way for a] company’s management to engender trust that OHS responsibilities are taken seriously and improvements are planned or undertaken (C1).
Overall, respondents were most keen to see information relating to those incidents that resulted in the most detrimental damage, be it financial, physical or social. Consequently, survey participants expressed the strongest demand for firms to disclose indicators of fatalities, permanent and temporary disability and total injury. Also very important to the majority of respondents was the simultaneous presentation of explanatory information that detailed both the circumstances surrounding fatal and serious injuries and the processes (actions, programs and initiatives) by which the firms’ sought to prevent recurrence.