Hi Smith
As you have worked out RIDDOR stats are counted differently to e.g. OSHA stats for various types of "recordable", often summarised into incident rates.
You won't find reliable statistics for "near misses" for the simple reason that there is no agreed definition of a "near miss".
You could find statistics for recordable accident and incident rates in the US at the Department of Labor website which breaks the numbers down by sector and sub-sector. Whether this data of much help if you are in the UK is unlikely, not least since both numbers and rates are much higher in the US.
Even RIDDOR stats have to taken with a huge pinch of salt given the level of underreporting (or, since RIDDOR 2013 also underrecording of "Over 3 Day Injury" accidents.
To date I don't think anyone has published research data on underreporting since requirements changed in 2013, but under the previous legislation underreporting of accidents to employees was estimated to be about 50% and to the self-employed over 90%.
But even if you could get the numbers could you reasonably benchmark against stats for huge, diverse industries such as manufacturing and construction.
To take the latter:
Suppose you have two large Contractors each employing 1000 people, so at first sight like for like.
1. One effectively works as a Management Contractor, so almost all the higher risk tasks are done by sub-contractors. UNLESS their statistics include those for their supply chain, what they compile for their own employees SHOULD be very low numbers.
2. The other either decides to do most of the high risk work themselves OR deliberately keeps integrated stats (perhaps to compare project performance) so as to include supply chain incidents. What this Contractor compiles SHOULD be much higher numbers.
So comparing Contractor 1 with Contractor 2 is apples and pears.
Very similar problems arise when you look at the sub-contractors.
One roofing contractor might do predominantly new build work - so you would expect all the precautions to be in place, not least as they have to be in place for trades working at lower levels. So the same scaffold protects the bricklayers AND provides edge protection for the roofing squad.
In contrast, another roofing contractor might focus mainly on repairs to existing roofs. It's a markedly differnt picture in terms of tasks, risks and reasonably practicable mitigations.
So, my Q to you - "What would you do with the information?"!!!
I KNOW it is popular to ask about accident statistics in e.g. prequalfication questionnaires or to provide such information when asking for some safety award, but usually the information is largely meaningless.
Very difficult to come to statistically signficant judgements on any trends in performance - whether up or down - since except for a huge organisation, you won't be able to detect a statistically significant trend in less than several years or more.
...and even in a huge organisation the occasional disaster which might result in multiple fatalities or mega environmental damage is capable of being masked by large numbers of less severe incidents. Big corporations are adept at doing this in e.g. their "Sustainability Reports".
As example you can probably find the 2017 Sustainability Report for Vale (large multinational) online.
You will find their pretty graph which appears to show a decline in recordables.
THEN, do a search for the word Fundao in the report. Not mentioned in the bit about HSE. It is mentioned because of the financial consequences.
THEN, do a search on Google for the words Vale and Brumadinho. That came later so could not be reported in a 2017 report.
....and I could cite other examples!!!