You don't need research papers to inform that linking bonuses with LTA's is a bad idea.

1) there is no opportunity for the bonus recipient to directly and effectively impact LTA numbers unless it is specifically unique to their personal record

2) the possible loss of bonus would see some dubious practices

Plenty of posts on here where users are seeking to justify not reporting

Yeah, I have this issue at my current role, and it's a company-wide metric (mistake) not site standard so I am powerless to make any changes to it.

FR1- Lost time injuries and FR3- First Aid Injuries as a performance measure and reduction target is a negative metric that can lead to: Underreporting, blame culture, resource misallocation, narrow metrics, demotivating, short-term focus, complacency, stigmatization, lacks context, focus on outcomes rather than processes and preventative controls.

-Introduce Positive Performance Indicators: Shift focus from negative outcomes to positive performance indicators such as near-miss reporting, safety training completion rates, and proactive audits. These metrics encourage reporting and engagement in safety practices.

-Develop and implement training programs that emphasize the importance of accurate injury reporting and the role it plays in improving workplace safety. Encourage a culture where safety improvements and proactive behaviors are recognized and rewarded.

-Establish a continuous feedback loop with employees to evaluate the effectiveness of current safety measures and objectives. Use this feedback to adjust EHS strategies and focus more on preventive controls and processes.

HSE's Guidance on Developing Safety Performance Indicators: HSG254:  https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg254.htm

Wouldn’t this presuppose that the employees are always the ones at fault and never the company. Seems a bit of an arrogant position to take by the company and obviously so wrong I would doubt there is any external study. IMHO

I have not read these  papers but looking at the titles none of them specifically state that bonuses should be linked to lower levels of  reported accidents. Instead they link bonuses to improved H&S performance as we all know there are loads of ways of measuring H&S performance,  with some ways better that others . Simply linking your bonus to reduced LTA will almost certainly lead to some people trying to cover up accidents or at least downgrade them  to some less significant.  We still get people fretting about RIDDORS and trying to find loopholes so that don’t have to report and get a blackmark.  Alternatively when looking at metrics ( and this is something that the titles of some of the papers aver to) the metrics themselves must be relevant to improving H&S. simply saying that there must be a toolbox talk every week,  can create good numbers but unless the talk relates specifically to what people actually need, it is largely irrelevant.  I am not entirely convinced that in most workplaces bonuses actually work at all but that is another matter.

Hi Penny

I think there is plenty of evidence of incentives leading to undesirable consequences such as underreporting particularly if the incentives use reactive indicators as the benchmark.

However, even if a more balance approach is taken so as to include consideration of leading indicators as Steve refers to, there is still a big problem with trying to directly correlate what happens in terms of Safety (and perhaps Health) and performance by managers or anyone else.

This is mostly about the common attempt to divorce H&S from everything else an organisation is doing.

Doing something to "improve" safety could overall be disbeneficial whether at societal or organisational level.

Imagine a fish processing company that notices that it has lots of accidents involving cuts to fingers and hands during filleting operations. 

That business could introduce mechanised filleting equipment and just about eliminate those cuts to fingers and hands in one simple exercise.

However, the yield of filleted fish would be likely to be reduced. So more attached to the bones to go into pet food or waste. 

So the profit margin would be severely reduced, whilst at the same time some fish filleting people would lose their jobs. OK they are no longer getting cuts at work, but the impact on THEIR health from being out of work is likely to be MORE severe.

In contrast, if any incentive system considers H&S as just one of multiple objectives it might be much less likely to influence "unintended consequences".

Would a manager get a large bonus for doubling output if that came with increased numbers of injuries or the threat of enforcement against their employer for uncontrolled pollution? Probably not in the modern era.

So, why apply a similar strategy and link bonuses to a single indicator - H&S?