Doctoral thesis of philosophy accounting for lost time examining corporate accountability to stakeholders for occupational health and safety

Accounting for Lost Time: Examining Corporate Accountability to Stakeholders for Occupational Health and Safety A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Sharron M O’Neill B.Com, MCom(Hons), CPA School of Accounting College of Business RMIT University March 2010 Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed Sharron M O’Neill 3rd March, 2010 ii Dedication This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my great-great-grandfather, William Montgomery, who was killed in a mining accident in the Stanford Merthyr Colliery in June 1907, and his son Robert who suffered respiratory damage from long-term coal dust inhalation; to my great-grandfather Fred Carter who passed away from surgical complications after a mining accident in 1932, and his brother John (Jack) who lost his arm in a mining incident and was subsequently known for the hook worn where his hand should have been It is dedicated to these and to the many other men and women who have suffered, and continue to suffer, work-related injury or illness This thesis is also dedicated to those men and women charged with the responsibility of managing hazardous workplaces and in particular to those who are actively cognisant of the health and safety impacts of their managerial decisions To those mine managers and mine accountants, my great-grandfather Robert Johnson, my uncle Ray and all those who strive to manage industrial operations in a socially responsible way, this thesis is also dedicated to you Finally, this thesis is dedicated to those advocates committed to protecting miners and other workers To the vocal campaigners for workplace health and safety: regulators, trade union officials, safety officers, academics, mine rescue and emergency response teams In particular I thank those who have inspired me in this journey by sharing their experiences and research: Yossi Berger, Robert O’Neill, Bill Shorten and John Webb; Darren Flanagan, Geoff McDonald, Roger Kahler and Philip Byard; Ron MacCallum, and Michael Quinlan To all those men and women dedicated to ensuring workers go home safely at the end of each day, this thesis is dedicated to you iii Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank those people who have, in one way or another, provided invaluable guidance, assistance and support as I researched and wrote this thesis First, thank you to my supervisor, Professor Craig Deegan, for his continued support and good humour, for guiding me through the process, for encouraging me to be critical and thorough, and for inspiring me to explore the broader issues within my field I am indebted to my husband Robert who travelled with me throughout this journey and whose endless love, support, patience and encouragement was invaluable Robert’s willingness to be a sounding board and thoughtful critic for my ideas was always appreciated and his practical insights helped frame my research questions and shape the thesis I also offer heartfelt thanks to my parents, Errol and Jill, my extended family and my close friends for their encouragement, for providing me space to work and (hopefully) forgiving my absence from recent social gatherings In particular, I thank Dr Cornelia Beck for her generous words of wisdom and support Finally, I also wish to acknowledge and thank the University of Sydney and the Discipline of Accounting for providing the semester of teaching relief which permitted me to substantially progress this thesis I also thank Sara Haddad for proof-reading my final draft and helping me ensure the content was consistently presented and the reference list was complete iv Contents Declaration .ii Dedication .iii Acknowledgements iv Research Summary .1 Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Justification for the research 1.2 Research objectives 1.3 Issues for research 1.4 Contribution to knowledge 1.5 Structure of the thesis 10 Chapter 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 11 Corporate accountability for OHS 12 2.1.1 Defining OHS 12 2.1.2 Ethical duty of care – OHS as a human right 13 2.1.3 Legislated duty of care – OHS as a legal obligation 15 2.1.3.1 Robens: Reshaping OHS regulation 16 2.1.3.2 WorkChoices: Reshaping industrial relations 19 2.1.4 2.1.4.1 Economic consequences of OHS 24 2.1.4.2 Non-financial consequences of OHS 26 2.1.5 2.2 Consequences of OHS failure 24 Summary 26 Constructing corporate accounts of OHS 28 2.2.1 Accounting for corporate OHS performance 29 2.2.1.1 Financial measures of OHS performance 29 2.2.1.2 Non-financial indicators of OHS outcomes 32 2.2.1.3 Non-financial indicators of OHS inputs and processes 35 2.2.2 Philosophical foundations of OHS strategy 36 2.2.2.1 Egocentric ideology 36 2.2.2.2 Ergonomic ideology 37 2.2.3 OHS strategy, programs and performance 38 2.2.3.1 Risk identification and assessment 39 2.2.3.2 Behaviour-based programs 41 2.2.3.3 Safety incentive programs 42 2.2.3.4 OHS management systems (OHSMS) 45 2.2.4 Revisiting indicators of OHS 47 2.2.5 Summary 49 ii 2.3 Empirical evidence of OHS disclosure 49 2.3.1 2.3.1.1 Human resource disclosures 51 2.3.1.2 OHS disclosures 52 2.3.2 2.4 The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 56 2.3.2.1 The GRI’s sustainability reporting guidelines 57 2.3.2.2 Advocates of the GRI 58 2.3.2.3 The GRI and OHS disclosure 61 Summary 62 Chapter 3.1 Exploring OHS disclosures 50 THEORY DEVELOPMENT 64 Theorising ‘why’ firms provide OHS disclosures 64 3.1.1 Stakeholder theory (ethical perspective) 65 3.1.2 Legitimacy theory 67 3.2 Theorising ‘what’ OHS disclosures firms provide 70 3.2.1 The evolution of ‘institutional theory’ 70 3.2.2 Contextualising institutional change 73 3.2.2.1 The organisational field 73 3.2.2.2 Institutionalised patterns of behaviour (templates) 74 3.2.3 Institutional pressure and the evolution of templates 76 3.2.3.1 Coercive isomorphism 77 3.2.3.2 Normative isomorphism 77 3.2.3.3 Mimetic isomorphism 78 3.2.3.4 Decoupling 79 3.2.4 Institutionalised templates of OHS disclosure 80 3.3 Summary 82 3.4 Research model 85 Chapter RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS 86 4.1 Introduction 86 4.2 Research Methodology 86 4.2.1 Ontological and epistemological foundations 86 4.2.2 Inductive versus deductive reasoning 88 4.2.3 Classifying accounting research 90 4.2.4 Mixing quantitative and qualitative methods 90 4.3 Research Design 92 4.3.1 Research objectives 92 4.3.2 Research methods and model 93 iii 4.4 Conduct of the research 94 4.4.1 4.4.1.1 Survey design 95 4.4.1.2 Variable selection 95 4.4.1.3 Sample selection 96 4.4.1.4 Survey administration 98 4.4.1.5 Data analysis 99 4.4.2 Stage – Content analysis 99 4.4.2.1 Research context 100 4.4.2.2 Sample selection 101 4.4.2.3 Research scope 102 4.4.2.4 Category generation 103 4.4.2.5 Data coding and analysis 106 4.4.3 4.5 Stage – Stakeholder survey 94 Stage – Reconciling evidence of supply and demand 112 Methodological limitations 114 4.5.1 Reliability 115 4.5.2 Validity 116 4.6 Summary 118 Chapter 5.1 RESULTS: Survey .119 Overview 119 5.1.1 Response rate 119 5.1.2 Describing the sample 120 5.2 Stakeholder perceptions of OHS impact and accountability 122 5.2.1 Attitudes toward OHS 122 5.2.2 Perceptions of OHS impact 123 5.2.3 Demand for OHS accountability 124 5.3 Stakeholder demand: information relevance 127 5.3.1 Demand for information on OHS expenditure 128 5.3.2 Demand for information on OHS outcomes 133 5.3.3 Demand for information on OHS processes 137 5.4 Stakeholder demand: information comparability, reliability 141 5.4.1 Comparability – measurement standards 141 5.4.2 Comparability – data presentation 143 5.4.3 Comparability – disclosure media 146 5.4.4 Reliability – external verification 147 5.5 Summary 148 iv Chapter 6.1 RESULTS: Content Analysis .151 Describing the sample 151 6.1.1 Annual reports 152 6.1.2 Sustainability reports 153 6.1.3 Overview of OHS content 154 6.2 Patterns of OHS disclosure 157 6.2.1 OHS Governance 158 6.2.1.1 Corporate commitment to OHS 159 6.2.1.2 Corporate board oversight 162 6.2.1.3 OHS Policy 163 6.2.1.4 Summary 165 6.2.2 OHS processes 165 6.2.2.1 Patterns of reporting on OHS activities 167 6.2.2.2 Trend 1: Behaviour-based safety for OHS risk management 170 6.2.2.3 Trend 2: Occupational health as corporate philanthropy 173 6.2.2.4 Trend 3: Process KPIs as evidence of OHS effectiveness 175 6.2.2.5 Summary 179 6.2.3 OHS Outcomes 181 6.2.3.1 Work-related fatality disclosures 182 6.2.3.2 ‘Serious’ injury and illness disclosures 186 6.2.3.3 Total injury and illness 189 6.2.3.4 Occupational disease 196 6.2.3.5 Summary 198 6.2.4 OHS Expenditure 199 6.3 The GRI and OHS disclosure 202 6.4 Summary 204 Chapter DISCUSSION: Perceptions of Disclosure Quality 209 7.1 Evaluating quality using PSI scores 209 7.2 Data relevance 211 7.3 Data comparability 212 7.3.1 Lack of historical data 213 7.3.2 Inconsistent performance metrics 214 7.3.3 Inconsistent units of measurement 216 7.4 Data reliability 218 7.4.1 Evidence of bias 219 7.4.2 Evidence of errors 220 7.4.3 Use of external verification 221 7.5 Evaluating quality using OSHAI Scores 223 v Chapter CONCLUSION .226 8.1 Summary of research project 226 8.2 Implications of research findings 228 8.2.1 8.2.1.1 Contributions to theory 228 8.2.1.2 Implications for research method 230 8.2.2 8.3 Implications for research 228 Implications for practice 231 Recommendations 232 8.3.1 Recommendations for policy-makers and the professions 232 8.3.2 Recommendations for rating agencies 233 8.3.3 Recommendations for preparers of corporate reports 233 8.3.4 Recommendations for the GRI technical committee 234 8.4 Limitations 235 8.5 Conclusion 235 REFERENCES 237 APPENDICES 262 vi Summary of Appendices Appendix 1: Economic Cost Burden to Employer, Worker and Community 262 Appendix 2: Potential Sources of OHS Hazards 263 Appendix 3: Survey Instrument 264 Appendix 4: Disclosure Classification Rules 272 Appendix 5: Disclosure Index (Matrix) 273 Appendix 6: Example of Excel ‘Comment’ Function for Coding Rules 274 Appendix 7: Overview of Pacific Sustainability Index 275 Appendix 8: Examples of Data Coding 284 Appendix 9: Descriptive Information – Survey Respondents 285 Appendix 10: Attitudes to OHS Process KPI Disclosure (by stakeholder type) 286 Appendix 11: Summary of CSR Reports Examined (by year and firm type) 287 Appendix 12: Reconciling Outcome Disclosure to Expectations 288 Appendix 13: Reconciling OHS Expenditure Disclosure to Expectations 289 Appendix 14: Format of Injury Data Presented by Year 290 Appendix 15: Adapted PSI Scores (by category, firm and year) 291 Appendix 16: OSHAI Scores (by category, firm and year) 293 Appendix 17: Comparing Trends in PSI and OSHAI Scores (by firm and year) 296 Appendix 18: Injury and Illness Classifications 297 vii Appendix 9: Descriptive Information – Survey Respondents Stakeholder Industry Employee # Mining & Energy Construction OHS regulator # Trade union # OHS manager # OHS consultant # Shareholder # Academic # Total # 5.3% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 2.6% 12.5% 6.7% 15.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12 8.9% Healthcare 12 31.6% 0.0% 3.3% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 12.6% Agriculture 13.2% 0.0% 3.3% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% Manufacturing 2.6% 12.5% 6.7% 22.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13 9.6% Transport 2.6% 0.0% 3.3% 5.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 3.7% Government 10 26.3% 37.5% 11 36.7% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29 21.5% Education 5.3% 0.0% 6.7% 7.5% 10.0% 50.0% 100.0% 14 10% Other – high risk 5.3% 37.5% 6.7% 7.5% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11 8% – med risk 2.6% 0.0% 16.7% 15.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18 13% – low risk 2.6% 0.0% 3.3% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 38 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0% 40 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 135 100% < years 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 2.2% 2-5 years 21.1% 25.0% 20.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21 15.6% 6-10 years 5.3% 12.5% 3.3% 2.5% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 11-20 years 10 26.3% 12.5% 16.7% 22.5% 20.0% 25.0% 40.0% 30 22.2% 21-35 years 17 44.7% 25.0% 12 40.0% 22 55.0% 20.0% 25.0% 40.0% 58 43.0% > 35 years 2.6% 25.0% 20.0% 7.5% 10.0% 50.0% 0.0% 15 11.1% 38 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0% 40 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 135 100% Male 17 44.7% 37.5% 17 56.7% 23 57.5% 70.0% 50.0% 40.0% 71 52.6% Female 21 55.3% 62.5% 13 43.3% 17 42.5% 30.0% 50.0% 60.0% 64 47.4% 38 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0% 40 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% 100% 135 100% 38 28.1% 5.9% 30 22.2% 40 29.6% 10 7.4% 3.0% 3.7% 135 100% 3.7% Experience Gender Total 285 Appendix 10: Attitudes to OHS Process KPI Disclosure (by stakeholder type) % of respondents (by stakeholder group) who ranked each KPI as … Perceived importance of OHS (activity) KPIs to each stakeholder group Near misses Hazardous exposures Absentee -ism OHS training offered OHS training attended OHS risks identified OHS risks controlled OHS committee representation Other % % % % % % % % % % % Employees 16.7 20.0 3.3 0.0 3.3 10.0 10.0 26.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 Regulators 57.1 0 14.3 14.3 14.3 0 Unions 33.3 3.7 7.4 3.7 3.7 11.1 25.9 11.1 0 Managers 54.3 5.7 5.7 8.6 5.7 11.4 8.6 0 Consultants 12.5 12.5 0 0 50.0 25.0 0 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 0 20.0 20.0 0 0 40.0 20.0 0 % % % % % % % % % % % Employees 47.5 64.4 6.8 20.3 27.1 30.5 47.5 71.2 67.8 16.9 Regulators 71.4 42.9 28.6 57.1 42.9 71.4 57.1 28.6 0 Unions 67.9 49.1 3.8 22.6 41.5 45.3 64.2 49.1 45.3 7.5 3.8 Managers 88.2 44.1 17.6 14.7 41.2 29.4 50 44.1 61.8 8.8 Consultants 66.7 40.0 0 26.7 40.0 66.7 80.0 66.7 13.3 Shareholders / owners 66.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 66.7 0 Academics 50.0 100.0 50.0 0 50.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 The most important Shareholders / owners Academics One of the top four most important OHS Audit nonaudits conformance completed Total 286 Appendix 11: Summary of CSR Reports Examined (by year and firm type) Sustainability reports 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Energy Companies Number of firms Total Reporting 3 4 5 5 5 47 No of sustainability reports produced during the period by firms listed before 1997 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 100% 67% 3 No of sustainability reports produced during the period by firms listed after 1997 na na Na 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 13 (80%) (total number of firms by year) 0 0 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 20% 40% 80% 60% 6 8 10 10 10 10 89 No of sustainability reports produced during the period by firms listed before 1997 20% 20% 20% 33% 50% 67% 67% 83% 83% 83% 100% 33 6 No of sustainability reports produced during the period by firms listed after 1997 na na Na 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 25% 25% 25% Total # sustainability reports examined 0^ 0^ 0^ 5 5^ 38 10 (80%) Total sustainability reports 0 6 10 0% 0% 0% 18% 25% 46% 43% 40% 53% 60% 67% 50 15 12 (80%) Total # sustainability reports examined Mining Companies (total number of firms by year) ^As indicated above, four sustainability reports were issued but copies could not be obtained 287 Appendix 12: Reconciling Outcome Disclosure to Expectations Reconciling OHS Illness & Injury Disclosure with Stakeholder Expectations (by firm and year) Fatality Longterm disability# Permanent disability Average severity LTI (or RI) Medical treatment Minor injury Workplace disease^ Disclosures by firm (as a % of cases) E1 38% - - 75% 100% 63% 33% - E2 27% - 9% - 45% - - - E3 9% - - 18% 82% 18% - - E4 17% - - - 67% - - - E5 18% - 18% - 91% - - 55% M1 45% - - - 100% 9% - - M2 91% - - 9% 91% - - 45% M3 25% - - - 88% 75% 50% - M4 27% - 9% 18% 91% - - - M5 55% - - 45% 100% - - - M6 - - - - 100% 100% - - M7 27% - 18% - 55% 9% - - M8 60% - - 20% 80% - - - M9 100% - - 18% 91% 27% - 100% M10 50% - 25% - 75% 100% - - Disclosures by year (as a % of cases) 1997 22% - 1998 33% - 1999 33% - 2000 27% - 36% 91% 18% - 2001 33% - 33% 100% 17% - 2002 38% - 15% 100% 15% - 2003 31% - 15% 45% 23% - 2004 33% - 7% 7% 100% 33% - 2005 53% - 13% 13% 55% 27% - 2006 47% - 13% 7% 80% 33% - 2007 67% - 7% 91% 40% - 100% Average disclosure provided 41% 0% 5.1 % 13.9 % 83.2% 21.2 % 4.4 % 16.1% 76 % 75 % 73 % 68% 52 % 32 % Stakeholder expectation 85% 9% - 22% 91% - 22% 88% - Ranked severity KPIs in most important: 98.6 % # 100% Ranked rsponse-based KPIs in most important: 45% 10% 40.9 % Includes cases of permanent disability and temporary long-term incapacity (>6 months) ^ Refers to separate measures of occupational illness (rather than included in injury data) 288 Appendix 13: Reconciling OHS Expenditure Disclosure to Expectations Reconciling OHS Expenditure Disclosure with Stakeholder Expectations (by firm and year) Year Fines & penalties Workers’ compensation Contingent liabilities Training programs Other programs Disclosures by firm (as a % of cases) E1 - - - 13% - E2 - - - 9% - E3 - - - 9% - E4 - - 50% - - E5 - - - - - M1 - - 9% - 27% M2 36% - - - - M3 - 13% - - - M4 9% - - - - M5 - - - - - M6 - 100% 71% - - M7 9% - - - - M8 - - 20% - - M9 91% - - 9% - M10 - 100% 100% 25% - Disclosures by year (as a % of cases) 1997 - - - - 11% 1998 11% - - - 11% 1999 11% - - - 11% 2000 9% - - - - 2001 8% 8% 8% 8% - 2002 15% 8% 8% 8% - 2003 8% 8% 8% - - 2004 7% 13% 13% - - 2005 13% 13% 13% 13% - 2006 20% 20% 20% 7% - 2007 20% 13% 27% - - Average disclosure provided 11.7% 8.8% 10.2% 3.6% 2.2% Stakeholder expectation 75% 66.1 % n/a 60.5 % 46.8 % 289 Appendix 14: Format of Injury Data Presented by Year Proportion of firms presenting injury data as a rate and / or an absolute number (by reporting media) Year AR CSR Either # or % Both # & % Either # or % Both # & % 2007 80% 13% 100% 40% 2006 93% 20% 100% 11% 2005 87% 20% 100% 25% 2004 93% 27% 100% 29% 2003 77% 38% 83% 17% 2002 77% 23% 83% 17% 2001 67% 17% 67% 33% 2000 64% 9% 100% 0% 1999 78% 11% 1998 67% 0% 1997 44% 11% na 290 Appendix 15: Adapted PSI Scores (by category, firm and year) PSI Scores Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total EA Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total EB Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total EC Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total ED Annual Reports ( score / 15) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 4 5 4 12 13 11 12 4 3 2 0 3 10 5 2 0 0 7 4 12 10 Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total EE Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MF Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MG Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MH 5 13 0 4 11 4 11 12 12 4 11 3 4 13 4 12 2 5 4 13 5 14 2002 4 12 12 11 4 13 5 4 13 10 5 12 2003 12 4 10 5 14 4 4 11 4 13 5 13 2004 12 4 11 5 14 11 4 11 12 3 5 12 2005 3 10 3 11 12 13 4 13 CSR Reports ( score / 15) 2006 4 11 5 13 5 15 4 10 2 4 12 11 2007 12 5 14 5 14 4 11 11 5 14 4 12 All Reports (as a % of maximum score) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 4 5 4 12 14 13 5 5 3 13 12 13 12 2 4 5 5 11 13 11 11 13 5 14 3 4 11 5 14 5 14 5 14 5 13 5 14 13 5 14 2 13 13 12 13 13 4 11 13 4 11 4 11 13 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 80 100 80 80 80 80 100 80 100 60 100 80 60 80 80 60 80 60 80 87 73 80 80 80 40 80 60 60 80 60 40 40 60 100 0 60 60 80 60 47 13 60 53 67 80 40 100 100 80 100 40 40 40 60 80 20 0 0 40 33 47 47 47 73 100 40 100 60 80 80 80 80 80 80 67 87 60 40 33 100 80 100 100 100 100 60 60 60 100 80 100 100 80 80 80 80 100 87 73 80 93 87 100 40 60 80 80 100 60 20 60 80 100 100 40 80 80 80 60 13 40 73 80 93 73 80 100 60 60 100 100 60 80 20 20 100 100 80 60 60 40 80 60 73 80 47 40 93 87 2003 60 100 80 80 80 100 80 87 100 80 100 93 80 100 100 93 60 40 20 40 80 100 100 93 80 80 100 87 100 100 80 93 2004 60 100 80 80 80 80 60 73 100 80 100 93 100 100 100 100 80 60 80 73 100 100 80 93 60 60 60 60 100 100 80 93 2005 80 80 80 80 100 60 60 73 60 80 100 80 60 80 100 80 80 100 80 87 100 100 80 93 80 80 100 87 80 100 80 87 2006 100 100 80 93 100 100 60 87 100 100 100 100 80 40 80 67 100 40 40 60 80 100 80 87 80 80 80 80 100 100 80 93 2007 100 100 80 93 100 100 80 93 100 100 80 93 100 100 80 93 100 40 80 73 100 100 80 93 100 60 80 80 80 100 80 87 Maximum score for each category = 5, total = 15 ‘All reports’ percentages reflect total score for each category (i.e philosophy, narrative, quantitative or total) as a percentage of maximum available 291 PSI Scores Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MI Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MJ Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MK Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total ML Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MM Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MN Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total MO Average Philosophy Narrative Quantitative Total Annual Reports ( score / 15) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 4 4 4 3 5 12 13 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 5 5 12 12 13 13 4 2 4 13 3.0 2.4 1.9 3.4 2.6 2.2 3.6 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.8 3.6 3.6 2.9 10 2002 4 11 3 3 11 3 12 4.1 3.5 3.0 11 2003 12 4 11 12 4 13 CSR Reports ( score / 15) 0 2004 12 4 13 4 13 5 12 4 13 2005 3 11 2 12 4 13 5 12 5 13 2006 3 10 4 10 4 10 5 13 4 13 5 14 4 13 2007 12 0 4 12 5 14 2 12 3.9 3.0 3.6 11 4.2 3.4 3.7 11 3.7 3.0 3.6 10 4.3 3.5 3.7 11 4.5 3.3 3.1 11 All Reports (as a % of maximum score) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 4 4 3 3 5 4 12 12 11 11 5 5 5 5 13 13 15 14 3 4 13 13 4.0 3.5 3.5 11 4.7 4.7 3.7 13 3.8 3.8 3.8 12 3.4 3.4 4.2 11 3.7 3.7 4.3 12 3.6 4.4 4.4 13 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 40 60 80 80 80 40 80 80 80 60 60 100 100 100 80 47 80 87 87 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 80 60 60 80 80 100 100 60 100 100 60 100 60 80 60 53 67 40 60 80 60 20 80 40 40 47 60 100 80 80 87 2002 80 60 100 80 60 20 60 47 100 60 60 40 80 80 100 87 100 60 80 80 2003 80 60 100 80 80 80 60 73 80 40 60 33 80 60 100 80 100 80 80 87 2004 80 80 100 87 100 60 100 87 80 20 40 20 80 80 100 87 100 80 80 87 100 100 40 80 100 80 80 87 85 74 68 82 78 82 88 79 79 5 15 4.0 3.9 4.0 12 4.0 4.2 4.1 12 60 49 40 69 51 44 71 56 62 42 47 55 64 47 56 49 73 75 62 63 73 78 80 2005 2006 2007 80 80 80 60 60 100 100 80 80 80 73 87 80 100 80 100 100 100 80 100 100 87 100 93 40 80 80 40 40 60 60 80 80 33 40 47 60 60 60 80 100 80 100 100 100 80 87 80 100 100 100 80 80 100 80 80 80 87 87 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 80 100 93 93 100 100 100 100 100 80 80 60 80 60 87 87 80 80 83 83 81 292 91 81 80 92 88 83 82 86 Appendix 16: OSHAI Scores (by category, firm and year) OSHAI Scores Annual Reports (score / 30) CSR Reports (score / 30) All Reports (as a % of maximum score ) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Governance 3 4 1 3 60 60 40 60 80 80 40 20 40 60 80 Process 7 4 40 60 70 60 70 60 40 40 80 80 60 Outcome 2 2 2 2 7 10 20 20 50 20 20 20 20 70 40 70 Quality 2 3 3 4 - 40 20 40 40 20 60 60 80 20 80 Total EA 13 12 16 15 13 11 10 13 17 19 16 20 27 43 40 53 50 43 37 33 70 53 70 Governance 4 5 5 40 20 80 60 20 80 100 80 100 80 100 Process 2 4 7 7 20 - 20 20 50 60 70 30 40 70 70 Outcome 0 2 2 2 3 - - 20 20 50 20 30 20 20 20 30 Quality 0 2 3 3 3 - - 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Total EB 11 13 15 15 12 13 16 17 17 15 18 13 37 33 47 50 60 40 47 53 60 Governance 3 3 20 60 60 - 40 60 60 60 40 60 60 Process 1 6 7 10 10 10 - 30 40 30 60 60 70 70 Outcome 0 0 2 10 - - - - 40 20 20 30 70 50 Quality 0 0 3 3 - - - - - 20 40 60 60 60 40 Total EC 4 12 10 14 14 21 17 14 10 13 13 - 17 40 33 47 47 67 57 Governance 3 3 0 60 40 60 60 60 40 60 80 Process 2 7 60 40 70 60 60 70 40 50 Outcome 4 1 40 40 40 60 60 40 20 50 Quality 2 2 2 4 3 40 40 40 80 80 60 60 60 Total ED 16 12 16 13 10 11 12 15 15 15 16 50 40 53 63 63 53 40 57 Governance 2 3 40 40 40 60 60 60 Process 1 10 10 10 70 60 20 Outcome - 10 20 50 10 20 Quality 0 2 - - 40 40 - 40 Total EE 17 10 10 13 23 57 33 30 Maximum scores: governance = 5, process = 10, outcome = 10, quality = 5, Total = 30 ‘All reports’ percentages reflect total score for each category as a percentage of maximum available 293 OSHAI Scores Annual Reports (score / 30) CSR Reports (score / 30) All Reports (as a % of maximum score ) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20002001200220032004 200520062007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3 3 3 3 3 1 60 60 60 100 100 60 60 60 60 60 60 Process 6 6 8 7 50 70 80 80 80 60 80 80 60 70 70 Outcome 6 5 5 5 6 60 70 50 70 60 60 50 60 50 60 50 Quality 3 3 2 3 3 40 60 - 80 60 80 80 80 60 60 60 Total MF 16 20 16 18 16 18 14 18 15 15 16 23 16 15 18 20 16 17 13 53 67 53 80 73 63 67 70 57 63 60 Governance 2 2 3 3 1 3 20 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 60 80 Governance Process 0 2 5 - - 10 40 80 60 80 70 50 50 50 Outcome 3 2 0 2 - 20 30 30 20 50 20 30 50 70 30 Quality 0 0 0 0 1 - - 40 60 - 60 40 - 40 40 40 Total MG 11 12 11 13 12 5 12 11 14 16 12 13 27 40 43 53 47 40 50 57 47 Governance 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 40 60 40 20 60 60 60 60 80 100 80 Process 3 6 8 9 40 30 10 - 80 80 90 80 90 90 90 Outcome 5 4 4 4 6 5 7 20 50 50 40 60 60 50 50 60 70 70 Quality 1 1 2 2 1 4 40 20 20 20 60 20 60 60 80 80 80 Total MH 12 12 12 15 14 13 18 20 18 16 18 22 24 24 33 40 30 20 67 60 67 63 77 83 80 Governance 1 3 2 3 3 20 20 80 60 60 60 80 60 40 80 80 Process 3 4 3 4 3 4 10 30 30 40 40 30 30 50 40 40 50 Outcome 3 4 6 6 5 5 20 30 30 60 40 40 60 60 60 50 60 Quality 2 2 2 2 1 2 40 40 60 60 60 40 60 60 40 40 40 Total MI 12 15 13 12 14 15 14 14 15 12 14 14 14 16 20 30 43 53 47 40 53 57 47 50 57 Governance 0 0 2 3 4 - - - - - 40 60 60 80 80 80 Process 0 0 1 8 - - - - - 30 70 60 80 80 80 Outcome 0 0 2 4 6 - - - - - 20 20 60 40 60 60 Quality 0 0 1 2 2 - - - - - 20 - 40 60 40 40 Total MJ 0 0 12 12 16 17 20 20 - - - - - 27 40 57 63 67 67 Governance 2 1 3 3 40 40 20 20 40 60 60 60 20 60 60 Process 7 3 70 50 40 70 60 30 10 - 20 30 10 Outcome 5 2 2 70 60 50 30 50 20 20 20 20 20 50 Quality 3 1 0 60 20 60 - 40 40 40 - - 40 60 Total MK 19 14 13 11 14 5 9 57 40 40 33 43 23 17 13 23 30 294 OSHAI Scores Annual Reports (score / 30) CSR Reports (score / 30) All Reports (as a % of maximum score) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Governance 2 2 2 60 20 40 40 60 40 40 40 Process 4 8 8 10 40 80 80 80 80 80 90 Outcome 1 2 2 10 10 50 20 20 50 20 20 Quality 1 2 3 - 40 40 40 40 60 60 60 Total ML 14 15 18 15 16 17 17 27 57 47 50 60 50 53 Governance 3 3 60 100 60 60 60 60 60 Process 4 4 40 40 30 40 40 50 70 Outcome 2 2 2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Quality 3 3 3 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 Total MM 12 14 11 12 12 12 15 40 47 37 40 40 40 50 Governance 3 60 100 80 80 Process 8 8 60 80 80 80 Outcome 10 50 20 70 Quality 0 2 - 40 40 60 Total MN 10 15 16 20 22 33 67 53 73 Governance 3 3 60 60 60 60 Process 5 70 60 50 50 Outcome 50 10 60 50 Quality 1 60 40 40 40 Total MO 18 11 15 15 60 40 53 50 Average Governance 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 37 41 49 48 50 58 55 52 59 65 67 Process 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 27 29 31 31 50 49 53 54 61 62 63 Outcome 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 20 23 29 29 30 35 32 33 40 42 47 Quality 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 20 22 27 36 39 37 46 47 53 44 53 Total 9 10 11 12 11 12 12 12 12 15 16 13 14 15 17 16 17 24 28 31 35 41 44 45 46 52 52 56 295 Total score (as a percentage) Appendix 17: Comparing Trends in PSI and OSHAI Scores (by firm and year) 296 Appendix 18: Injury and Illness Classifications Indicator Calculation method Occupational illness (TROI) TRCOIRMT TRCOIRMT ND Denominator Incl MTI Incl FAI Any work-related abnormal condition or disorder that has resulted from an exposure at work 1,000,000 hrs Y Y Occupational illness that results from continuous exposure requiring medical treatment or first aid Occupational illness requiring medical treatment other than first aid New cases of occupational disease 1,000,000 hrs Y Y Y N Rate of occupational disorders (ROD) New cases of occupational disease Indicator Calculation method Lost workday cases (LWC) One or more days away from work other than the day on which the illness or injury occurred Lost workday frequency (LWF) Lost workday rate average (LWR) Lost time incident frequency rate (LTIFR) Classified injury (CIFR) Lost time incident frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury / illness case rate (LTII) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) ? ? Lost days (undefined) plus restricted work days Lost days (undefined) plus restricted work days Number injuries preventing employees: returning to their next shift / working on their next scheduled day of work ? A work-related injury or illness that results in a permanent disability or time lost of one complete shift or day or more any time after the injury or illness Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) Injuries that result in death, permanent disability or lost work time Injuries resulting in the person being absent from work due to injury (no length of time specified) Number of lost time injuries (undefined) due to workplace accidents which require more than 24 hours off work An injury where the person misses one or more full rostered shifts Number of injuries preventing an employee or contractor returning to their normal duties the following shift ? Indicator Calculation method Total recordable case severity rate (TRS) Injury severity Sum of injury severities (see index table) Severity Average days lost per LTI LTI severity Average working days lost Average number of days lost Days lost to injury Severity rate (DLTI) Duration rate Number of days lost to injury and restricted duty Number of days away from unrestricted duties Severity of classified injuries Days lost per workers' compensation claim (SWC) Average shifts lost ? na 10,000 hrs Denominator (hrs) Incl death 1,000,000 Yes 200,000 work hrs ? ? ? 200,000 ? 1,000,000 ? 1,000,000 ? 200,000 ? 1,000,000 No 1,000,000 Yes 1,000,000 ? 1,000,000 ? 1,000,000 ? 200,000 ? ? ? 1,000,000 ? Denominator Total hours lost ? ? ? 1,000,000 hrs worked 1,000,000 hrs worked Employee LTI (excludes MTI & FAI) ? ? Injury WC Claim 200,000 297 Indicator Calculation method Total recordable case frequency rate (TRC) Total recordable cases (TRC) Total injury case rate (TICR) Recordable case rate (RCR) Total recordable incident frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable case frequency rate (TRIFR) Total recordable injury frequency rate (TRIFR) Recordable injury (RI) rate Fatality + LTIs + MTIs + RDs due to injury or illness 1,000,000 Incl Death Yes LTIs + MTIs + RDs due to injury or illness 1,000,000 No OSHA method (no further detail reported) ? Fatality + LTIs + MTIs + RDs (includes illness?) 200,000 1,000,000 ? ? Yes Fatality + LTIs + MTIs + RDs 1,000,000 Yes Fatality + LTIs + MTIs + RDs 200,000 Yes LTI + MMTI + CLTI 1,000,000 ? LTI + MMTI (excluding ‘minor’ medical treatment injuries) 1,000,000 ? LTI + MTI 1,000,000 ? Any injury requiring more than first aid treatment 1,000,000 Yes LTI + MTI + FAI 1,000,000 ? ? 1,000,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Indicator Moderate Medical Treatment Frequency Rate (MMTFR) Persons requiring medical treatment (MTI) Three-month index for medically treated injuries (MTI) Medically referred injury frequency (MTI) Medical treatment injury frequency rate (MTIFR) Medical treatment injury frequency rate (MTIFR) Denominator Calculation method ? Denominator (hrs) 1,000,000 ? N/a ? 1,000,000 Injuries that require medical treatment more serious than first aid including LTI and MTI and any other injuries that result in a person not being able to perform their normal duties A medical treatment injury is an injury which is attributable to a workplace incident, requires medical treatment [including restricted work] and which results in less than a full shift of work being lost 1,000,000 Yes Yes 1,000,000 No Yes 1,000,000 No ? Any work-related injury that a) requires treatment by, or under the specific order of, a medical practitioner or any injury that could be considered as being one that would normally be treated by a medical practitioner; b) results in less than a full shift being lost from work Indicator Restricted day injury frequency rate (RDIFR) Calculation method Restricted duties injury frequency rate (RDIFR) Restricted work day injury (RWD) Any injury requiring more than first aid ? ? Incl LTI Incl RD Denominator ? Incl LTI ? 1,000,000 hrs absolute number Yes No 298 Indicator Definition provided Number of occupational illness cases Number of new cases of occupational disease Number of new cases of occupational disease Total recordable occupational illness Number of occupational illnesses including those requiring first aid Total recordable occupational illness Number of occupational illnesses excluding those requiring first aid Medical examinations completed Number of people completing medical examinations through the year as a percentage of those requiring medical exams Compensatable disease Number of new cases of occupational disease or illness cases registered ‘compensatable’ (i.e confirmed as requiring compensation) Number of new cases of illness by type Number of new cases of: noise induced hearing loss respiratory disease repetitive trauma Rates of occupational illness Rate of occupational disorder (later identified as: Rate of new cases of occupational illness) Number of new cases of occupational disorder per 10,000 employees Rate of occupational illness Any work-related condition or disorder that has resulted from an exposure at work per 1,000,000 hours worked Total recordable cases of occupational illness (TRCOIMT) Occupational illness that results from continuous exposure requiring medical treatment including first aid per 1,000,000 hours Total recordable cases of occupational illness (TRCOIMT) Occupational illness that results from continuous exposure requiring medical treatment other than first aid per 1,000,000 hours Total recordable occupational illness frequency Frequency of occupational illness including those requiring first aid per 1,000,000 hours worked Total recordable occupational illness frequency Frequency of occupational illness excluding those requiring first aid per 1,000,000 hours worked 299