Posted By Ian Waldram
One organisation I worked with included a S/H/E element in the 'balanced scorecard' which was used to reward all employees with an annual bonus (or not, depending on what was achieved!). When we moved to this approach, we wanted to include SHE as we always said it should be managed in the same ways as other key business results. However, we didn't want to use accidents as the measure, for all the reasons others have given above.
We decided to use the average annual SHE audit score (we had an internally-developed SHE Management System, with a relatively simple scoring arrangement, and each part of the business was audited annually). This proved to be a really good incentive for managers & supervisors initially, and each year the SHE performance was 'stretched', both by raising the target score, and also by continuously improving our audit arrangements and competence.
However, after a few years, people tended to lose sight of WHY we had a SHE MS, and just tried to improve their audit score, and sometimes this didn't correlate with real improvements in safe working. Our conclusion is that leading indicators, like the activities required from managers & supervisors by a good SHE MS, can be used as the basis for a good incentive sheme, but that actual results, preferably including some kind of "accident potential" rather than just what actually happens, also have to be included. In other words, even the SHE Element within an overall 'balanced scorecard' has itself to be 'balanced', with both leading and lagging indicators, as well as measures which include H & E, not just S.
I agree with others who have quoted their experiences of Safety incentive schemes which just result in less open/honest reporting. I have known this happen even in an organisation which tried to make it clear to managers by saying "If you report an accident in your area we will be disappointed, but if you fail to report one you will be sacked!"