FULL REPORT

The New Value

of Safety and Health
in a Changing World
1
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Background and Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Methodology and Content Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Evolving Meaning of Environment, Health and Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Frameworks and Modern Environment, Health and Safety Alignment. . . . . . . . . . . 17

Framework Assessment Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Introduction to the New Value of Safety Theme Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The New Value of Safety: Theme Profile Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Human and Organizational Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Total Worker Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Serious Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Psychological Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Environment, Social and Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Environment and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Ethics and Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Recommendations and Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Appendix 1: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Quantitative Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Qualitative Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix 2: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Appendix 3: References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2
Foreword
What does it mean to be safe? This simple question has spawned decades of debate, and even now discussion
continues in circles both academically and practically about the true meaning of the word and the best way to
manifest it in the field. That this conversation continues to evolve – even occasionally flaring into passionate
arguments about human nature – may be difficult for some to believe. Yet we know over time, societal and business
perspectives shift, sometimes more radically and rapidly than others. As they do, the models we once used to
understand, evaluate and take action on these issues become outdated – even actively unhelpful – in affecting
change in the world and the workplace.

Such is the case with safety today. In the past ten years alone, the world has seen a rapid advancement in
technologies, faced crises that have imperiled the health and wellbeing of the global population and economy, and
gone through significant demographic and cultural change. In the midst of this, our definitions of safety and health
could not and did not remain static. Even absent of this level of external turmoil, the definition of safety had already
been transforming in the business community, with the emergence of new thinking around leading indicators;
decision-making; neuroscience; serious injury, illness and fatality prevention (SIIF); and human and organizational
performance (HOP). Taken together, these elements form the basis of “The New View” of safety and health,
sometimes called “Safety 2.0.”

The past five years have seen not only a continuation of this “old/new” debate, with numerous points of view and
practices developing in the market and research arenas, but a massive influx of attention on areas less traditionally
considered as belonging to the safety domain. Two particular areas of influence have dominated this discussion
– environment, social and governance (ESG) and total worker health (TWH). These two domains were already
seeing an increased focus among more mature organizations in the past decade, with interlinks to traditional
safety and health beginning to be established. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside societal and workplace
demographic changes, has forced greater attention on issues like physical wellbeing; mental health; psychosocial
risk; diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); sustainability; ethics and governance, driving a true transformation in the
dialogue around the scope of safety.

Yet the models we rely on – philosophical and financial – do little, if anything, to account for this sea change. Tools
like Heinrich’s Triangle or the Iceberg Model have long been insufficient to express the true value and valuation of
safety and health, and even the more modern and sophisticated efforts grounded in accounting principles have not
been updated to reckon with the new reality of the safety landscape. Each organization may be at a different point
on its path toward understanding and embracing safety. However, it’s increasingly harder to ignore the fact that for
many people, the concept of safety has expanded to include not just protecting one’s arms and legs in an industrial
facility, but to safeguarding all of the things that make us who we are – and all of the things in and surrounding our
work environments.

< Back to Table of Contents >

In this fundamentally changed landscape, new models and new language are necessary – and so are new tools.
This report, the outcome of a two-year effort by the National Safety Council, in partnership with and funded by
Lloyd’s Register Foundation and assisted by a panel of experts from the safety, health, ESG, business, research,
investment, insurance, NGO and government communities, represents a first step toward redefining safety in 2023.
As may be obvious from the size of this full report, this was no small undertaking, but we have segmented the work
into discrete components for easier use:

• An executive summary capturing the key highlights, findings and recommendations of the work
• T his full report, which provides a detailed look at the New Value of Safety model and its component parts,
as well as recommendations for action

• A full literature review, which provides insights into the trends, frameworks and context informing the synthesis
and creation of the model

• An activation guide, which provides methodologies and case studies that can be used to put the model into
practice regardless of whether you are a safety and health practitioner or an ESG investor

We encourage you to read through this report and its associated resources and tools with an eye toward actual
change and not as a passive conceptual piece. While the topics may be technical, the work has kept practicality
in mind, and the recommendations and activation guide are intended to spark conversations, plans and policy
change wherever they are used. Also, please note wherever the word “safety” appears, it should be understood as
a shorthand for the myriad of issues impacting physical safety, and that utilizing it as a single word is not meant to
exclude health, wellbeing and other associated topics.

In the century-old words of the first National Safety Council President & CEO, Robert W. Campbell, safety
can perhaps best be understood as, “the study of the right way to do things.” This definition, if nothing else,
acknowledges that change is a constant in life. Embracing this means we must also change the way we conceive
of safety to remain relevant, responsive and reflective of the context in which we attempt to create it every day.

We welcome you to join us on this journey.

4
Executive Summary
Environment, health and safety (EHS) is a constantly evolving field impacted by the latest scientific research,
technological advancements, megatrends and associated changes in the regulatory landscape. To gain a better
understanding of the importance and benefits of modern workplace safety, the National Safety Council (NSC) in
conjunction with and funded by Lloyd’s Register Foundation (LRF), commissioned a study into the New Value (and
Valuation) of Safety, particularly in the context of modern-day topics, such as environment, social and governance (ESG).
The New Value of Safety provides a basis on which a broad range of stakeholders can make commitments to practically
modernize EHS programs, implement new safety strategies and improve culture.

While the highest priority of the EHS function will always be the physical safety of workers, this research highlights three
organizational concepts that are generating broad value and driving a holistic approach to safety management for highly
embedded and emerging risks. These concepts include:

• Human and Organizational Performance (HOP)

• Total Worker Health (TWH), developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
and adapted in many formats, covering SIIF, mental health and psychological safety
• ESG, which covers several initiatives shaping modern safety excellence, including DEI, environment and sustainability,
and ethics and governance

The analysis found these concepts and initiatives are inter-related and have distinct areas of overlap. While current
organizational structures and resources have predominantly kept ESG and TWH programs separate, some themes, such
as DEI, have relevancy across both TWH and ESG, and the benefits of integrating these areas are increasingly evident. A
framework developed to visualize these relationships appears below:

Diversi
ty, E
th qui
eal ty
alH an
t d
en En In
M vir
cl
us

izationa
ion

gan
on

Or lP Focus Area
e
me
lth

d
Env
es

Worker Hea

rfo

n
an
Injuries, Illness

ironm
t, Social and
rma
and Fatalities

Human

Environment, Operational Philosophy

ent and Su
nce

Health and
Safety (EHS) Physical and Mental Safety Theme
ious

s
tal

ta
G
Ser

ina

ESG and Sustainability Safety Theme

o

o
T

bili
ve

ty

na
r

nc
y
et

e
E

af th
ics
lS
gica an
dG
o
hol ove
Psyc rnance

Figure 1: Framework of Environment, Health and Safety Themes

< Back to Table of Contents >

These modern EHS initiatives generate different areas of value for a broad set of stakeholders. As well as creating
value for employees, investors and executives, value is generated across communities and society as a whole.
Originally developed by The Delft University of Technology, and adapted through this study, the Hierarchy of
EHS Value (see below) effectively represents the value generated through EHS programs across eight areas:
health, economic, environment, sustainability, resilience, ethics, society and reputation. That said, we believe the
relationships between these value creation areas are less a direct, ordinal hierarchy and more a set of closely and
complexly interrelated linkages that require additional analysis and interpretation.

Enhanced brand perception and reputation due to safety interventions

Reputation
and their expected benefits to customers, employees and other stakeholers.

Benefits to employees, communities and society resulting from business

Society
or government action to drive higher safety standards and legislation.

Improved trust in safety-related activites, increasing the perception of justice

Ethics
and fairness and engagement with safety activites.

Ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to and recover

Resilience from disruptions. Benefits include enhanced productivity, improved
management of sustainability goals, and reduced downtime and incidents.

Enhanced ESG and sustainability performance due to safety interventions

Sustainability and their expected benefits which are either explicity or implicity incorporated
into sustainability initiatives.

The short-term and long-term protection of the environment due to safety

Environment interventions. This includes prevention of pollutants, toxic releases, avoiding
damage towards and working to restore land, natural resources and local ecosystems.

Cost savings and improved returns incurred from safety interventions and
Economic their expected benefits including incident avoidance, enhanced productivity,
and efficiency and improved compliance.

Physical and mental health and wellbeing of all employees or applicable

Health individuals affected by the activities of an employer.

Note: Although called a “hierarchy,” these concepts are not meant to be thought of as strictly or ordinally hierarchical in nature.

Figure 2: Hierarchy of Environment, Health and Safety Value (adapted from Yang, M (2022))

The holistic approach driven by contemporary safety programs creates an opportunity for businesses to generate
long-term systemic value over and above physical safety and direct cost reduction. For example, SIIF prevention
and mental health programs directly create health value, but they also ensure workers are more productive, which
drives economic value. Additionally, a team that feels physically and emotionally safe is more resilient and able to
withstand, respond to and recover from disruptions. More broadly, SIIF prevention and mental health programs can
boost trust between employees and employers. They can also enhance an organization’s reputation by mitigating
the risk of serious incidents, and, by driving up safety standards, they contribute to healthier communities.

This shift is being increasingly supported by the regulatory and standards landscape developing to align with the
New Value of Safety. While current coverage of safety frameworks is still heavily focused on physical safety risks, an
increasing number of safety frameworks exist discussing ESG themes such as equality, culture and
the environment.

< Back to Table of Contents >

 However, silos and coverage gaps are created as a result of frameworks still viewing TWH and ESG as separate
themes. Furthermore, regulations are also often voluntary and focused on offering deep technical support for
industry-specific hazards which can inhibit a holistic approach to EHS. This has resulted in non-workplace hazards
that materially impact wellbeing and safety at work being poorly supported across the regulatory landscape. A map
of these themes to existing frameworks covering ESG, EHS and operational excellence appears below:

Human and Organizational Performance

Total Worker Health ESG

Serious Injuries,
Psychological Diversity, Equity Environment and Ethics and
Framework name Illnesses and Mental Health
Safety and Inclusion Sustainability Governance
Fatalities

CAN/CSA-Z1003-13

Corporate Knights
Sustainability Rankings

GRI

INSHPO

ISO 26001

ISO 45001:2018

ISO 45003:2021

Just Capital

SASB O&G Exploration

& Production

UN Sustainable
Development Goals

Key: High Focus Medium Focus Low Focus

Figure 3: Framework Coverage of Environment, Health and Safety Initiatives

To improve the awareness and understanding of the organizational concepts and initiatives shaping modern safety
programs, the New Value of Safety has been broken down into distinct concept and theme profiles. These profiles
can be used by safety professionals, business executives, investors and policymakers to gain insight into the role
and benefits of these initiatives in modern EHS programs and guide decision-making with respect to EHS strategies,
best practices, investment decisions and performance tracking. Regardless of current maturity level, there is an
opportunity to benefit from the compounding value modern safety programs create.

< Back to Table of Contents >

 These themes and initiatives have been further studied to understand the primary, secondary and tertiary value they
create across a variety of dimensions, and this full report includes quantitative and qualitative data regarding each
initiative, program implementation guidance, sample metrics and KPIs, and recommended actions for the future.
A summary appears below:

Health and Safety

Human and Organizational Performance

Total Worker Health ESG

Serious Injuries,
Psychological Diversity, Equity Environment and Ethics and
Theme Illnesses and Mental Health
Safety and Inclusion Sustainability Governance
Fatalities
•S
 erious injuries, •S
 tate of mental •A
 n organizational •P
 rinciple that •P
 rotection of •G
 uiding principle
illnesses and wellbeing that state where people should be the environment which implies
fatalities are enables people workers subject to policies, and ability for moral conduct,
contributors to cope with from diverse processes and a company to showing
to a significant the stresses of backgrounds are practices that sustainably consideration
reduction or total life, realize their included, allowed are fair, free from maintain resources for the rights
Definition/ loss of human abilites, learn well and encouraged to bias and ensuring and relationships and interests of
Description health and work well, and learn, contribute the inclusion of with, and manage others reflected
contribute to their and challenge all stakeholders its dependencies in the processes
community co-workers without in organizational and impacts within and practices of
fear of ridicule contexts its whole business governing
and absence of ecosystem, over
interpersonal fear the short, medium
and long term
•H
 ealth, Economic, • Health, •H
 ealth, Resilience, • Sustainability, • Environment, •E
 thics, Health,
Resilience, Ethics, Sustainability, Economic, Ethics Resilience, Society, Economic, Health, Economic,
Value Society, Reputation Society, Economic, and Reputation Reputation, Sustainability, Environment,
Creation and Sustainability Resilience, Economic, Health Reputation, Sustainability,
Reputation and Ethics Resilience, Ethics Resilience, Society
and Ethics and Society and Reputation
• ISO45001:2018 • CAN/ • CAN/ • ISO26000:2010 • ISO26000:2010 • INSHPO
• GRI 403 CSA-Z1003-13 CSA-Z1003-13 •C  orporate Knights •C  orporate Knights • ISO26000:2010
•C  orporate Knights • ISO45003:2021 • ISO45003:2021 Sustainability Sustainability • ISO45001:2018
Sustainability • UN SDGs • UN SDGs Rankings Rankings
Framework
Rankings • GRI 403 • INSHPO • Just Capital • Just Capital
Coverage
• INSHPO • INSHPO • UN SDGs • UN SDGs
• ISO26000:2010 • CAN/ • SASB
CSA-Z1003-13
• SASB
•S  afety culture • Employee • Leadership •E  qual treatment • Pollution •E
 thical sourcing
and leadership engagement engagement and remuneration prevention and supply chains
• Continuous • Flexible work •T  ransparent goals • Impact • Sustainable •H
 azard and risk
learning and •T  raining and and performance assessments resource use and identification and
Initiatives/
improvement continuous leaning measurement across genders, supply chains elimination
Programs
• Group training races and •C  limate change •P
 PE and controls
orientations mitigation •D
 EI and
•E  thical hiring and • Biodiversity psychological
sourcing safety
•N  ear miss and root •T raining and • Employee •B  oard, executive •E  nergy, GHG •P  ublic and
cause analyses support engagement and and director emissions, water, community
• Worker •F requency of feedback rates diversity waste, air and, sentiment polls
engagement communication •T  raining and • Workforce particulate matter •E  mployee turnover
indicators • Productivity support resources demographics productivity • Employee
•J  ob hazard • Risk controls • Risk controls •F  air Play Score and •C  lean revenue and satisfaction
analyses Rating investment •S  anctions and
KPIs/Metrics • Equipment • Living wage • Supplier fines
reliability and • EEOC Violations sustainability • CEO-average
process control and Worker scores employee pay
•N  umber and Grievance Fines •R  esource efficiency •S  ick leave and
frequency of pension
corrective actions

< Back to Table of Contents >

The New Value of Safety Report is intended to collate the actionable insights and value generation potential
of key areas in modern EHS programs. Businesses should use the guidance provided in the theme profiles to
implement targeted interventions for these areas. To effectively drive these changes and align with the New Value
of Safety, several general areas of best practice were identified via analysis carried out across the research. This
full report includes further recommendations and KPIs derived from this work, and a short list appears below.
Recommendations that include an asterisk are suggested for those just beginning their journey:

• Assess the extent to which your strategy, policies and procedures address the full scope of
modern EHS beyond physical safety and short-term environmental impacts*

• Review your activities against key safety frameworks to align and identify the coverage gaps with
respect to legacy and emerging EHS themes

• Perform a holistic assessment, including materiality and risk analyses, to identify how these
themes impact workers in your organization and the value they can generate to support initiative
prioritization*

• Engage relevant functions to update the overarching safety and sustainability strategy, align with
key frameworks and assign KPIs to track performance

• Develop programs (such as TWH or the pillars of ESG) to establish a hierarchy of accountability
and organize workstreams (such as mental health or DEI initiatives)

• Create cross-functional committees to eradicate silos between safety, ESG and HR, and designate
Safety Champions to drive ownership of and engagement with the safety strategy

• Develop a transformation and investment plan focused on value creation to gain leadership buy-in
and support and encourage a leader-engaged safety culture

• Create an implementation plan and delegate ownership of specific activities at the functional and
individual levels that will close the targeted gaps in your safety program*

• Develop a communication program to roll out the New Value of Safety program and the benefits
this will drive, leveraging training and engagement tools to boost adoption

• Establish mechanisms enabling learning and feedback loops that drive continuous improvement
and increase the agility and impact of safety programs*

In addition, this research has been leveraged to develop a targeted Activation Guide for stakeholders to support
continuous improvement and help organizations evolve with the changing landscape of EHS, available on the NSC
website. This guide will enable businesses to address safety holistically and mitigate risks from multiple directions.
Regardless of current level of safety and health performance, there is an opportunity to benefit from this approach,
and we encourage using it to inform your safety strategy going forward.

If you are interested in additional information stemming from this research, please visit nsc.org/nvos.

< Back to Table of Contents >

Background and Context
Introduction to the New Value of Safety
EHS is a constantly evolving field impacted by the latest scientific research, technological advancements,
megatrends and associated changes in the regulatory landscape. The EHS function actively creates business
value through labor and the mitigation of operational risks, but there remains a significant lack of awareness of the
opportunity to drive value addition more broadly across society and a diverse set of stakeholders.

To gain a better understanding of the importance and benefits of modern workplace safety, NSC in conjunction with
LRF commissioned a study into the New Value of Safety seeking to answer the following questions:

• What is understood by the meaning of safety today?

• Why is safety important and valuable to stakeholders across industries and geographies?
• How can current values around safety be practically integrated into everyday decision-making?
• How do existing safety measurement frameworks differ from the meaning of safety today?
For the purposes of this research, safety refers to workplace safety, also referenced as EHS interchangeably
throughout this study. The New Value of Safety provides a basis on which a broad range of stakeholders can make
commitments to practically modernize EHS programs, implement new safety strategies and improve culture. It sets
out several methodologies for an effective EHS investment strategy across legacy and emerging safety themes,
with recommendations on the key actions and performance metrics based on primary interviews and secondary
research from existing frameworks, standards and literature.

The report aims to create a new comprehensive framework that can be used by all safety practitioners, irrespective
of differing mandates, industry or maturity levels to guide business case development, governance and strategic
decision-making. The insights from this report have been leveraged to develop an Activation Guide, which serves
as a practical guide for different stakeholders to operationalize the New Value of Safety and can be accessed
separately from this report.

Methodology and Content Assets

The New Value of Safety Report expands upon previous work performed on behalf of NSC and LRF by Avetta as
well as the Delft University of Technology. Key external inputs include:

• Benchmarking Organizational Commitment to ESG (Avetta and NSC, 2022)

• Value of Safety (Yang, M. et al. 2022)
To build on this research base, the New Value of Safety study involved several secondary and primary research
activities, the insights of which have been consolidated and included in this report. The key research activities
conducted include:

• Literature Review and Summary Report

n B
 uilt on a Delft study which analyzed the value of safety across 3,685 papers
published from 1900 – 2021

n R
 eviewed literature from 2017 – 2022, focusing on approximately 25 key documents to
understand recent evolutions to the value of safety

n Informed creation of models, analysis and recommendations included in this report

n Available as a separate download through the NSC website

10

< Back to Table of Contents >

 • Framework Assessment
n In-depth study into existing EHS and ESG frameworks and legislation (full methodology
available in Appendix 1)

• Quantitative Survey
n Included 81 survey interviews conducted between June and December 2022 representing a
broad range of stakeholder groups and geographies (full methodology available in Appendix 1)

n W
 hile the number of interviews included in this study is insufficient to draw conclusive
representative statements, this survey data provides an additional lens and further insight into
the themes discussed in this report

n W
 hile people from a wide spread of geographies were surveyed, the individuals included in this
study generally come from high-maturity organizations with strong existing safety cultures and
performance levels, which should be considered when reviewing the survey statistics

• Qualitative Interviews
n Included 10 deep-dive interviews with senior leaders from the NSC ESG/EHS Expert Working
Group and the Verdantix Research Network (full methodology available in Appendix 1)
Research Activites

External Inputs
Literature Review and Outputs
Summary Report
Benchmarking
Organizational
New Value of
Commitment to ESG
Safety Report
(Avetta and NSC, 2022)

Framework
Assessment

Value of Safety Activation Guide

(Yang, M. etal. 2022) (To be released in 2023)

Quantitative and
Qualitative Interviews

Denotes resources
available via nsc.org

Figure 1. Methodology and Content Assets

11

< Back to Table of Contents >

The Evolving Meaning
of Environment, Health and Safety
The meaning of EHS has evolved over time to include a broad set of themes and initiatives. Not only is the remit
of EHS expanding, but the definition of legacy and emerging themes has also changed over time, along with
expectations for performance (see Figure 2). A dynamic and agile approach to safety management is essential to
keep up with the changing landscape and its requirements. This research provides insight into how new, as well as
traditional safety areas, are being incorporated into modern safety programs and the value they generate.

While the highest priority of the EHS function will always be the physical safety of workers, this research highlights
contemporary strategies that are generating value and driving a holistic approach to safety management for highly
embedded and emerging risks.

Phase 1: Fatalities, Injuries and Workers’ Compensation

1880’s – 1960’s

• Germany had the first modern Phase 2: Environmental Laws and Driver Fatigue
workers’ compensation laws: 1871 1960’s – 1990’s
and 1884
• 1897 – UK workers compensation act Phase 3: DEI, Mental Health
• Clean Air Act U.S. – 1963, UK – 1956
• 1910s - 1934 – U.S. states pass and Carbon Management
• UK Environmental Protection Act and
worker compensation acts 1990’s onwards
Control of Pollution Act 1974
• Continued developements e.g. UK • U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act and
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
• Initial Movement: U.S. Equal Employment
Resource Conversation and Recovery Opportunity Act 1972
and U.S. Occupational Safety and Act – 1976
Health Act 1970
• Americans With Disabilities Act 1990
• European Economic Community 1985 • UK Equality Act 2010, Mental Health
• And more recently: UK RIDDOR Driver hours regulated and updated in (Discrimination) Act 2013
reporting on SIF, 2013 the EU in 2007
• Conditional (industry, firm size, publicly listed)
mandatory reporting of GHG emissions: U.S.
2010, EU 2014. Developments: EU’s CSRD –
2024, SEC’s climate disclosures – 2025/2026

Figure 2. Evolution of Health and Safety

The major organizational concepts shaping the New Value of Safety include:

• Human and Organizational Performance (HOP): An operating philosophy recognizing error as part of the human
condition, and that an organization’s processes and systems greatly influence employees’ decisions, choices and
actions, and consequently, their likelihood of successful work performance (National Safety Council, 2021).

• Total Worker Health (TWH): Developed by NIOSH and defined as policies, programs and practices that integrate
protection from work-related safety and health hazards with the promotion of injury and illness-prevention efforts
to advance worker wellbeing (NIOSH, 2016).

• Environment, Social and Governance (ESG): Environment, social and governance issues are identified or
assessed in responsible investment processes. Environmental factors are issues relating to the quality and
functioning of the natural environment and natural systems. Social factors are issues relating to the rights,
wellbeing, and interests of people and communities. Governance factors are issues relating to the governance of
companies and other investee entities. (UN Principles for Responsible Investment, 2023).

12

< Back to Table of Contents >

The EHS initiatives in this report include:

• Serious Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities (SIIFs): SIIFs are contributors to a significant reduction or total loss of
human health. These can be a permanent impairment or life-altering state, or an injury that if not immediately
addressed will lead to death or permanent or long-term impairment.

• Mental Health: Mental health is defined as a state of mental wellbeing enabling people to cope with the
stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community (World Health
Organization, 2022).

• Psychological Safety: Psychological safety provides individuals with a strong sense of inclusion amongst leaders
and peers in the workforce. Individuals are given a space to learn, are empowered to challenge unsafe conditions
and contribute diverse ideas without fearing negative consequences. Organizations create psychologically safe
environments by intentionally fostering a culture where employees feel safe to speak up and by having policies
and procedures that support the individual’s promotion of safe practices. With an empowered workforce,
individuals at all levels of the organization can support one another and promote reciprocal trust, ultimately
saving lives.

• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI): Diversity is defined as the characteristics of differences and similarities
between people (ISO, 2021). Equity is defined as the principle that people should be subject to policies, processes
and practices that are fair, as far as possible, and free from bias (ISO, 2021). Inclusion is defined as the process of
including all stakeholders in organizational contexts (ISO, 2021).

• Environment and Sustainability: The environment is defined as the “natural surroundings in which an
organization operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, people, outer space and their
interrelationships” (ISO, 2010). Sustainability is defined as the ability of a company to sustainably maintain
resources and relationships with and manage its dependencies and impacts within its whole business ecosystem
over the short, medium and long term. Sustainability is a condition for a company to access over time the
resources and relationships needed, such as financial, human and natural, ensuring their proper preservation,
development and regeneration to achieve its goals (IFRS, 2022).

• Ethics and Governance: Ethics is a guiding principle, which implies moral conduct and honorable behavior,
showing consideration to the rights and interests of others (Verma, S. and Prakash U.M., 2011). Business ethics
attempts to apply moral norms and values to business procedures and institutions (Tayşir and Pazarcık, 2013).
Governance refers to all processes of governing, the institutions, processes and practices through which issues
of common concern are decided upon and regulated. Good governance adds a normative or evaluative attribute
to the process of governing (United Nations Human Rights Office).

The analysis found these themes and initiatives are inter-related and have distinct areas of overlap. Firstly, HOP is
an operating philosophy, as opposed to a safety program, with its principles primarily being used to design safety
initiatives. HOP supports businesses by creating an underlying philosophy or worldview that all organizations can
adopt to drive higher safety standards. Furthermore, TWH brings together physical safety with health and wellbeing
creating value across SIIF, mental health and psychological safety themes. Similarly, ESG encompasses all issues
related to the natural world, people and operatory standards which includes DEI, environment and sustainability, and
social, ethics and governance themes. Due to these relationships, a Framework of Environment, Health and Safety
Themes has been developed to visualize how these topics fit together and can be structured within safety programs
(see Figure 3).

13

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Diversi
ty, E
alth qui
ty
He an
tal d
en En In
M vir

cl
us
izationa

ion
gan

on
Or lP Focus Area
e

me
lth

Env
es

Worker Hea

rfo

n
an
Injuries, Illness

ironm
t, Social and
rma
and Fatalities

Human

Environment, Operational Philosophy

ent and Su
nce
Health and
Safety (EHS) Physical and Mental Safety Theme
ious

s
tal

ta
G
Ser

ina
ESG and Sustainability Safety Theme
o

o
T

bili
ve

ty
na
r

nc
y
et

e
E

f th
Sa ics
ical an
og dG
hol ove
Psyc rnance
Figure 3: Framework of Environment, Health
and Safety Themes

While current organizational structures and resources have predominantly kept ESG and TWH programs separate,
some themes, such as DEI, have relevancy across both TWH and ESG, and the benefits of integrating these areas
are increasingly evident. For example, when considering TWH-related initiatives, recommendations focus on
minimizing physical hazards, improving worker security and productivity, and lowering the rate of psychological
distress and mental health problems. The resulting improvements across cost effectiveness, injury rates,
recruitment, employee retention and organizational excellence is set to drive ESG and sustainability performance.

Modern EHS initiatives generate different areas of value for a broad set of stakeholders. As well as creating
value for employees, investors and executives, value is generated across communities and society as a whole.
Originally developed by The Delft University of Technology, and adapted through this study, the Hierarchy of EHS
Value effectively represents the different areas of value generated through EHS programs (see Figure 4). While
represented as a hierarchy in the original publication, it is perhaps helpful to think of this visualization as less of an
ordinal hierarchy and more of a closely and complexly interlinked set of topics.

14

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Enhanced brand perception and reputation due to safety interventions
Reputation
and their expected benefits to customers, employees and other stakeholers.

Benefits to employees, communities and society resulting from business

Society
or government action to drive higher safety standards and legislation.

Improved trust in safety-related activites, increasing the perception of justice

Ethics
and fairness and engagement with safety activites.

Ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to and recover

Resilience from disruptions. Benefits include enhanced productivity, improved
management of sustainability goals, and reduced downtime and incidents.

Enhanced ESG and sustainability performance due to safety interventions

Sustainability and their expected benefits which are either explicity or implicity incorporated
into sustainability initiatives.

The short-term and long-term protection of the environment due to safety

Environment interventions. This includes prevention of pollutants, toxic releases, avoiding
damage towards and working to restore land, natural resources and local ecosystems.

Cost savings and improved returns incurred from safety interventions and
Economic their expected benefits including incident avoidance, enhanced productivity,
and efficiency and improved compliance.

Physical and mental health and wellbeing of all employees or applicable

Health individuals affected by the activities of an employer.

Figure 4: Framework of Environment, Health and Safety Themes

Although the value areas EHS creates can be understood as a hierarchy, they are also interconnected, whereby an
activity generating primary value in a specific area can also generate secondary and tertiary value creation
(see Figure 5).

For example, SIIF prevention and mental health programs directly create health value, but they also ensure workers
are more productive, which drives economic value. Additionally, a team that feels physically and emotionally safe
is more resilient and able to withstand, respond to and recover from disruptions. More broadly, SIIF prevention
and mental health programs can boost trust between employees and employers. They can also enhance an
organization’s reputation by mitigating the risk of serious incidents, and, by driving up safety standards, they
contribute to healthier communities.

15

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Human and Organizational Performance

Total Worker Health ESG

Serious Injuries,
Theme Psychological Diversity, Equity Environment and Ethics and
Illnesses and Mental Health
Value Safety and Inclusion Sustainability Governance
fatalities

Health

Economic

Environmental

Sustainability

Resilience

Ethics

Society

Reputation

Key: Primary Value Creation Secondary Value Creation Tertiary Value Creation

Figure 5. Environment, Health and Safety Initiatives Value Creation

The holistic approach driven by contemporary safety programs creates an opportunity for businesses to generate
long-term systemic value over and above physical safety and direct cost reduction. This shift is being increasingly
supported by the regulatory and standards landscape that is developing to align with the New Value of Safety.

16

< Back to Table of Contents >

Frameworks and Modern Environment,
Health and Safety Alignment
Frameworks and regulations have been developed to help organizations map the evolution of safety and proactively
address pressures surrounding emerging safety themes. This is evidenced by the evolution of modern safety
programs and the introduction of new regulations, such as the 2010 UK mental health equality act (Gov.uk, 2015), ISO
45001 (NQA, 2018), the updated Occupational Health and Safety Professional Capability Framework (INSHPO, 2017),
the SASB ESG Conceptual Framework (SASB, 2017) and carbon emission reporting disclosures. While the current
coverage of safety frameworks is still heavily focused on physical safety risks, there are an increasing number of
frameworks discussing ESG themes such as equality, culture and the environment (see Figure 6).

“Standards are coming together, covering a wide range of topics, in particular, issues around living wage are gaining
traction and have a huge impact on worker safety in terms of wellbeing.” – Technical Director, Consulting Firm

For each of the following safety risk factors, how comprehensive is existing
safety regulatory or standards coverage?

Occupational physical safety 64% 32% 4

Discrimination due to race,

sex, religion or ability 52% 35% 9% 5%

Management of
workplace culture 41% 36% 14% 10%

Safety risks arising

from climate hazards 31% 46% 15% 7% 1

ESG managment and reporting 28% 37% 25% 10%

Statistical or AI-based
technologies introducing 25% 23% 16% 31% 5%
unfair bias or discrimination to...
Mental health risks from anxiety,
stress, burnout and fatigue
21% 47% 26% 6%

Work-related financial stability 20% 33% 25% 22%

Minimum acceptable sleep

and rest to perform 19% 44% 20% 15% 2

Covered extensively in regulations and standards Partially covered in regulations and standards
Covered in standards (voluntary) only Guidance not provided in existing standards
Don’t know
Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.

Figure 6. Regulatory and Standards Coverage of Safety Risk Factors

An in-depth framework assessment was conducted to evaluate the extent to which existing safety frameworks
defined, measured and valued safety in light of the evolving landscape and the greater focus on ESG and TWH.
To perform such an assessment, Verdantix identified over 80 applicable EHS and ESG frameworks, of which 10
frameworks were shortlisted based on their alignment with the values associated with modern-day safety, the quality
and practicality of metrics on offer, and the significance of the new value of safety within the framework.

17

< Back to Table of Contents >

 The 10 shortlist frameworks include:
• CAN/CSA-Z1003-13 (BCFED, 2013)
• Corporate Knights Sustainability Rankings (CKSR) (Corporate Knights, 2021)
• GRI (GRI, 2018)
• INSHPO
• ISO 26001 (ISO, 2010)
• ISO 45001: 2018
• ISO 45003:2021 (ISO, 2021)
• Just Capital (Just Capital, 2022)
• Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Conceptual Framework
• UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2022)
While organizations are incorporating elements of TWH, ESG and HOP into their safety management systems and
programs through the guidance of existing frameworks, significant gaps and silos in the overall coverage of the
values identified remain (see Figure 7).

“Climate is getting all the attention right now. Governance has been worked on for a very long time. It is still quite
vague and poorly defined by a lot of folks.” – Chief Strategy Officer, EHS Software Company

Human and Organizational Performance

Total Worker Health ESG

Serious Injuries,
Psychological Diversity, Equity Environment and Ethics and
Framework name Illnesses and Mental Health
Safety and Inclusion Sustainability Governance
fatalities

CAN/CSA-Z1003-13

Corporate Knights
Sustainability Rankings

GRI

INSHPO

ISO 26001

ISO 45001:2018

ISO 45003:2021

Just Capital

SASB O&G Exploration

and Production

UN Sustainable
Development Goals

Key: High Focus Medium Focus Low Focus

Figure 7. Framework Coverage of Environment, Health and Safety Initiatives

18

< Back to Table of Contents >

From a guidance perspective, the main silos are created as a result of existing frameworks still viewing TWH and
ESG as separate themes. This is seen through the CKSR, ISO 26001 and Just Capital frameworks, which almost
wholly look at ESG-related themes with little consideration for TWH. Furthermore, governing bodies and their
corresponding frameworks are being forced to constantly update their coverage to align with the moving target
of safety best practices. Therefore, existing methodologies may not address all ESG and TWH-related struggles,
presenting additional challenges for organizations to achieve modern safety excellence.

More generally speaking, regulations are also often focused on offering deep technical support for industry-specific
hazards, which can inhibit a holistic approach to EHS. For example, OSHA has specific industry orders and the SASB
framework is split into 77 different industry standards. This has resulted in non-workplace hazards that materially
impact wellbeing and safety at work being poorly supported across the regulatory landscape.

“During the pandemic, OSHA couldn’t offer full guidance on COVID because they were limited to work-related safety
only, while COVID could be spread outside of work. This view of safety limits the scope of safety – having broader
education of safety and how it fits into the world is more valuable.” – Director, Federal Agency

Moreover, frameworks have also seen varied adoption rates across geographical regions. Historically speaking,
the U.S. has lagged behind Europe, which has a more stringent regulatory environment and greater coverage of
non-physical safety and psychosocial risk factors. While the U.S. and associated regulators are increasingly looking
to shift their requirements to include worker equality and mental health, such topics have been prevalent in the
European market for many years now. For instance, the recent EU directive on Corporate Sustainability Reporting
(Meynier, et. al., 2023) will require over 50,000 companies to provide more detailed sustainability reporting, including
environmental, social, and human rights and governance information. Non-EU companies trading within the EU will
have to comply by 2028.

While this study looked at global research and interviewed stakeholders based in countries outside of North
America, it is important to note that it was not focused on addressing variance in safety performance,
organizational maturity or regional/global maturity with respect to approaches to safety. For instance, the loose
hierarchy developed in the precursor report to this document, as well as the Framework of EHS themes and
Framework of Coverage of EHS Initiatives, are not differentiated based on macro conditions such as societal and
cultural points of view on the value of human life, existence of social security or healthcare systems and schema,
and so on. It is therefore important to note that not every stakeholder engaging with this work will want to start at
the same point for affecting change.

“In the UK, since the year 2000, people have been talking about and addressing stress in the workplace. In the U.S.,
even today, people don’t talk about stress. It still isn’t compensable under workers’ compensation.”
– CEO, EHS Management Consultancy

Finally, of the 80 frameworks screened for this assessment, over 85% were voluntary. The combination of voluntary,
disparate and unclear frameworks has resulted in organizations being able to pick and choose initiatives to
implement reducing the accountability of employers to pursue modern safety excellence.

19

< Back to Table of Contents >

Framework Assessment Summary
Framework Geographic
Framework Summary Safety Theme(s) Strengths Limitations
Category Applicability

Framework covering •O
 ffers guidance •M
 ental health and
stakeholders, and scenarios psychological
implementation, Mental Health based risk is still quite
resources, implementation nascent and
infrastructure, advice to help corresponding
event management Psychological
CAN/CSA-Z1003-13 EHS and ESG Safety North America firms understand metrics are
and training for how best to difficult to
issues relating improve workplace quantify –
to psychological Diversity, Equity management recommendations
health, mental and Inclusion practices to reduce may come across
wellbeing and safety psychological as being too
in the workplace safety risks simplistic
Assesses over 7,000 Serious Injuries, •R
 anks the 100 • F ew guidelines on
public companies Illnesses and most sustainable how to implement
with over $1 bn Fatalities companies in the recommendations
revenue to provide world through a
guidance on
• L argely focused
Diversity, Equity clearly defined on social
Corporate Knights equality, diversity, methodology
and Inclusion responsibility
Sustainability injuries, fatalities, ESG Global based on publicly-
Rankings with less than
environmental Environment and disclosed data and half of the key
performance and Sustainability 21 ESG-related performance
turnover performance indicators relating
Ethics and indicators to environmental
Governance sustainability
Supports •C
 an be used by •G
 uidelines can
organizations in firms to prepare be ambiguous
reporting on health sustainability and resulting
and safety issues, worker-centric in different
and mental health in reports interpretations
GRI 403: workplaces
Occupational health EHS Mental Health Global • S tandard focuses •P
 rovides lagging
and safety on workers’ indicators (e.g. it
recovery from records fatality
injuries instead of rates rather than
lost time providing proactive
•A  ligned with guidance for SIIF)
ISO 45001
An international •P
 rovides guidance • L imited to
forum for into roles, accidents and
engagement responsibilities, legal requirements
on EHS-related knowledge and rather than
matters, advancing skills required by proactive safety
the EHS profession Serious Injuries, EHS professionals
INSHPO through the EHS and ESG Illnesses and Global
•N
 o clear definition
exchange of Fatalities
•P
 rovides a around the model
benchmark for practice for EHS
evidence-based
firms on what to
practices and
expect and invest
the development
in with regards
of a harmonized
to EHS
framework
International • S upport any • F ramework is a
standard for organization guide to “socially
guidance on to behave in a responsible”
sustainable, social Diversity, Equity more social and organizational
and environmental and Inclusion environmental way behavior –
responsibility through a series focused on helping
of management firms improve
Environment and guidelines public perception
ISO 26000 EHS and ESG Global rather than adding
Sustainability • S upport social
responsibility actual safety value
reporting and
Ethics and integration with
Governance existing ISO
standards and
government
regulations

20

< Back to Table of Contents >

Framework Assessment Summary

Framework Geographic
Framework Summary Safety Theme(s) Strengths Limitations
Category Applicability

International standard • S upport organizations • F ramework does not consider

for guidance on creating to improve their the current maturity of firms
and managing effective occupational health and or consider if companies are
EHS programs, reducing safety performance to practically ready to implement
workplace incidents, Serious Injuries,
ISO 45001:2018 EHS Illnesses and Global prevent serious injury, new safety guidelines
absenteeism, reducing reduce ill-health, enhance
insurnace cost, health Fatalities •M
 ay be difficult for smaller,
legal compliance, improve less mature firms to interpret
and safety culture, health and safety culture, what the standard is asking
reputation staff and reputation and staff for
moral morale
Designed to be used • S upport organizations •M
 ental health and
with ISO 450001, this in improving work psychological risk is still quite
standard provides environment, resilience nascent and therefore it is not
guidance on the and productivity in relation clear who should be taking
management of Mental Health
to psychological safety responsibility of implementing
psychosocial risks and the standard
promoting wellbeing at Psychological • F ramework covers how
ISO 45003:2021 work as part of an EHS ESG Safety Global to identify psychosocial •G
 uidance assumes ISO 45001
hazards that can affect has been implemented
management system
Diversity, Equity workers and provides
and Inclusion examples of effective
- often simple - actions
to manage these and
improve employee
wellbeing
JUST Captial’s Rankings •D
 etailed measurement •C
 onsiders harmful industries
serve as a scorecard, Diversity, Equity methodology on relevant (e.g. tobacco/gambling)
providing unbiased data and Inclusion ESG and EHS issues when providing ESG and EHS
on how the largest U.S. guidance
companies perform on EHS Environment and North
•O
 ffers a series of metrics
JUST Capital
the issues Americans and ESG Sustainability America
to measure corporate •M
 ajority of companies
performance considered are technology
prioritize such as worker
companies which skews
rights, community Ethics and data – industry mapping
impact, environment and Governance methodology is not explained
customer rights
The framework sets • S upports firms in building •N
 o guarantee that SASB
out the basic concepts, sustainability strategies Standards address all
principles and objectives and more effectively sustainability impacts or
that guide firms in their perform ESG reporting opportunities associated with
approach to managing a sector, industry or company
environmental and
• S upports investors
social impacts and value Diversity, Equity to make investment •P
 rinciples aligned with SEC
and Inclusion decisions that align with guidance but no official
creation arising from
their ESG values affiliation with SEC or other
production of goods and
Environment and • Identifies sustainability entities governing financial
SASB services – also including ESG Global
Sustainability factors more likely to reporting, such as FASB,
the impacts that
impact the financial GASB or IASB
sustainability challenges
have on innovation, Ethics and condition and operation
business models, and Governance performance of an
corporate governance organization
and vice versa •C  onsists of 77 standards
to reflect the needs of
different industries

A global call to action Serious Injuries, •W

 ide-ranging goals •G
 oals are slow moving and
to end poverty and Illnesses and covering social, very generic – it doesn’t
inequality, protect the Fatalities environmental, consider individual issues or
planet, and promote Mental Health infrastructure, equality, practicality
health, justice and worker and community
UN Sustainable
prosperity – 17 SDGs EHS Diversity, Equity •C
 ountries are not forced
Development Global health that help improve to comply
that cover social, and ESG and Inclusion awareness and culture
Goals
environmental, Environment and barriers in relation to EHS •N
 o support for lower funded
infrastructure, equality, Sustainability and ESG objectives countries
worker and community
health Ethics and
Governance

21

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Introduction to the New Value
of Safety Theme Profiles
To improve the awareness and understanding of the organizational concepts and initiatives shaping modern safety
programs, the New Value of Safety has been broken down into distinct theme profiles. The structure of these
profiles aligns with the hierarchies outlined in this report (see Figure 8).

HUMAN AND
ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE

Overview

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT.
WORKER HEALTH SOCIAL AND
GOVERNANCE

Overview Overview

Serious Injuries,
Psychological Diversity, Equity Environment and Ethics and
Illnesses and Mental Health
Safety and Inclusion Sustainability Governance
Fatalities

Detailed Detailed Detailed Detailed Detailed Detailed

Profile Profile Profile Profile Profile Profile

Figure 8. New Value of Safety Theme Profile Structure

The profiles aim to provide consolidated information on the:

• D efinition and context of the theme
• E HS value creation areas
• F ramework coverage and guidance
• R ecommended initiatives and programs
•M  etrics and key performance indicators

Note that with respect to metrics, context is critical; metrics provided are intended to be directional, not prescriptive,
and an organization’s operating type, culture, location, relative maturity and many other factors influence the
selection and use of the correct performance indicators.

The profiles detailed in the subsequent sections can be used by safety professionals, business executives, investors
and policymakers to gain insight into the role and benefits of these initiatives in modern EHS programs and guide
decision-making with respect to EHS strategies, best practices, investment decisions and performance tracking.
These can be paired with the Activation Guide, available separately on nsc.org, in order to create a starting point for
action in your organization.

22

< Back to Table of Contents >

 The New Value of Safety:
Theme Profile Summary

Health and Safety

Human and Organizational Performance

Total Worker Health ESG

Serious Injuries,
Psychological Diversity, Equity Environment and Ethics and
Theme Illnesses and Mental Health
Safety and Inclusion Sustainability Governance
Fatalities
•S
 erious injuries, •S
 tate of mental •A
 n organizational •P
 rinciple that •P
 rotection of •G
 uiding principle
illnesses and wellbeing that state where people should be the environment which implies
fatalities are enables people workers subject to policies, and ability for moral conduct,
contributors to cope with from diverse processes and a company to showing
to a significant the stresses of backgrounds are practices that sustainably consideration
reduction or total life, realize their included, allowed are fair, free from maintain resources for the rights
Definition/ loss of human abilites, learn well and encouraged to bias and ensuring and relationships and interests of
Description health and work well, and learn, contribute the inclusion of with, and manage others reflected
contribute to their and challenge all stakeholders its dependencies in the processes
community co-workers without in organizational and impacts within and practices of
fear of ridicule contexts its whole business governing
and absence of ecosystem, over
interpersonal fear the short, medium
and long term
•H
 ealth, Economic, • Health, •H
 ealth, Resilience, • Sustainability, • Environment, •E
 thics, Health,
Resilience, Ethics, Sustainability, Economic, Ethics Resilience, Society, Economic, Health, Economic,
Value Society, Reputation Society, Economic, and Reputation Reputation, Sustainability, Environment,
Creation and Sustainability Resilience, Economic, Health Reputation, Sustainability,
Reputation and Ethics Resilience, Ethics Resilience, Society
and Ethics and Society and Reputation
• ISO45001:2018 • CAN/ • CAN/ • ISO26000:2010 • ISO26000:2010 • INSHPO
• GRI 403 CSA-Z1003-13 CSA-Z1003-13 •C  orporate Knights •C  orporate Knights • ISO26000:2010
•C  orporate Knights • ISO45003:2021 • ISO45003:2021 Sustainability Sustainability • ISO45001:2018
Sustainability • UN SDGs • UN SDGs Rankings Rankings
Framework
Rankings • GRI 403 • INSHPO • Just Capital • Just Capital
Coverage
• INSHPO • INSHPO • UN SDGs • UN SDGs
• ISO26000:2010 • CAN/ • SASB
CSA-Z1003-13
• SASB
•S  afety culture • Employee • Leadership •E  qual treatment • Pollution •E
 thical sourcing
and leadership engagement engagement and remuneration prevention and supply chains
• Continuous • Flexible work •T  ransparent goals • Impact • Sustainable •H
 azard and risk
learning and •T  raining and and performance assessments resource use and identification and
Initiatives/
improvement continuous leaning measurement across genders, supply chains elimination
Programs
• Group training races and •C  limate change •P
 PE and controls
orientations mitigation •D
 EI and
•E  thical hiring and • Biodiversity psychological
sourcing safety
•N  ear miss and root •T raining and • Employee •B  oard, executive •E  nergy, GHG •P  ublic and
cause analyses support engagement and and director emissions, water, community
• Worker •F requency of feedback rates diversity waste, air and sentiment polls
engagement communication •T  raining and • Workforce particulate matter •E  mployee turnover
indicators • Productivity support resources demographics productivity • Employee
•J  ob hazard • Risk controls • Risk controls •F  air Play Score and •C  lean revenue and satisfaction
analyses Rating investment •S  anctions and
KPIs/Metrics • Equipment • Living wage • Supplier fines
reliability and • EEOC Violations sustainability • CEO-average
process control and Worker scores employee pay
•N  umber and Grievance Fines •R  esource efficiency •S  ick leave and
frequency of pension
corrective actions

23

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Human and Organizational Performance
Definition and Context
HOP is defined as an operating philosophy that recognizes error as part of the human condition, and an
organization’s processes and systems greatly influence employees’ decisions, choices and actions, and
consequently, their likelihood of successful work performance (National Safety Council, 2021).

The principles of HOP can be designed into any specific safety initiative by integrating checks, reviews and
communication opportunities throughout. HOP is partially embedded within safety initiatives because it is a cross-
cutting approach to risk management, but it is typically seen only in high-maturity organizations (see Figure 9).

To what extent have you seen, or expect to see, the following emerging
safety factors integrated into safety programs?

Human and
Organizational 31% 59% 10%
Performance

Fully embedded Partially embedded

Will be embedded in the next two years Not embedded, no plans to embed

Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5%
are written as numbers.
Source: New Value of Safety Survey

Figure 9. Integration of HOP in Safety Programs. As noted on page 11, the survey cohort skewed
toward higher-maturity organization representatives.

Framework Coverage
The framework assessment revealed there is little focus on HOP, with only the UN Sustainable Development Goals
encouraging a holistic approach to safety that considers the broader social and environmental context in which
organizations operate. For example, by working towards Goal Three (Good Health and Wellbeing), Goal Six (Clean
Water and Sanitation), Goal Seven (Affordable and Clean Energy), Goal Eight (Decent Work and Economic Growth)
and Goal Nine (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), organizations can improve safety outcomes for workers,
while creating a culture encouraging continuous improvement and innovation.

Instead of being directly covered, many of the frameworks provide recommendations that align with the HOP
philosophy, but do not reference this approach directly. For example, to improve safety outcomes most of the
frameworks assessed an underlying no-blame safety culture that promotes proactive risk mitigation through
PPE deployment and frequent EHS inspections and audits, all of which align with the HOP principles. The generic
coverage of HOP across the frameworks further emphasizes it is not a program but a risk-based operating
philosophy, which recognizes that human error is unavoidable and that an organization’s processes and systems
are greatly influenced by worker actions.

24

< Back to Table of Contents >

Total Worker Health
Definition and Context
The TWH concept, developed by NIOSH and adapted by many others, is defined as policies, programs and practices
that integrate protection from work-related safety and health hazards with the promotion of injury and illness
prevention efforts to advance worker wellbeing (NIOSH, 2016). These efforts may relate to wages, work hours,
workload, work social issues, workers’ families and their communities. This holistic understanding of EHS has partly
arisen due to the COVID-19 pandemic, where the interconnectivity between how business is conducted and the
quality of life for employees and communities has come to the forefront.

Organizations moving to recognize TWH are bolstering existing SIIF initiatives with mental health and psychological
safety programs. However, they are facing obstacles as these different components of TWH are currently siloed
between functions.

“Safety, HR, security and wellbeing personnel are all responsible for different dimensions of total worker health and
companies are struggling to bring the functions together. No single employee can manage total worker health due
to siloed specialism training programs.” – Director, Federal Agency

Framework Coverage
With the rising importance of stress and burnout in the workplace, TWH initiatives have evolved past the purely
physical aspects of safety to include mental wellbeing and psychological factors. NIOSH has developed a
comprehensive program focused on promoting worker health and wellbeing through such initiatives. The program
includes resources and tools for workers to prevent injuries and illnesses in the workplace while also improving
overall worker wellbeing.

The framework assessment indicated that TWH is mainly addressed through physical safety measures, particularly
in the form of preventing SIIFs. However, there is an increasing focus on promoting a positive organizational culture
that enhances safety, health and wellbeing initiatives to sustain and improve TWH in the workplace. For example,
ISO 45001 aligns with TWH initiatives by offering requirements to identify and manage risks to both worker health
and wellbeing. The assessed frameworks offer ample support to minimize physical hazards, improve worker
security and productivity, and lower rates of psychological distress and mental health problems.

25

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Serious Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities
Definition and Context
SIIFs are contributors to a significant reduction or total loss of human health. These can be a permanent
impairment or life-altering state, or an injury that if not immediately addressed will lead to death or permanent
or long-term impairment. SIIF management has long been, and remains, a core element within EHS, focusing
on preventing events such as fatalities, missing digits, limbs, permanent partial or total loss of hearing, sight or
poisoning leading to long-term or complete loss of productivity. It is worth noting, however, that performance
in preventing SIIF events is not necessarily correlated one to one with performance in other safety outcomes
(including “minor” injuries) and vice versa.

SIIFs are usually straightforward to measure and may lead to worsened brand reputation, higher worker turnover,
higher premiums and a more unstable company due to ongoing workers’ compensation payments and litigation.
Technologies such as connected safety solutions, portable gas detection devices and real-time risk management
systems are providing EHS personnel with the ability to proactively measure and reduce SIIF risks.

Which statement best describes the impact

of linking ESG and EHS on SIIF events?

7%
Positive impact
No impact
27% Negative impact
65%

Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded

to zero decimal places.
Source: New Value of Safety Survey

Figure 10. Benefits of Linking ESG and EHS on SIIF Events

Linking ESG to EHS creates a range of benefits for SIIF event reduction (see Figure 10). Increasing disclosures on
SIIFs improves transparency and drives commitments to reduce incident rates due to increased shareholder and
stakeholder pressure. ESG also facilitates good governance and work practices, which support gradual
SIIF reduction.

“With the right methods and communication, EHS can set objectives for ESG. EHS assists in identifying the
system’s issues, and the EHS and ESG departments can develop solutions to reduce SIIF events or any other safety-
related concerns.” – Chief Sustainability Officer, Mining Company

26

< Back to Table of Contents >

 SIIF EHS Value Creation

Focus Level Value of Safety Rationale

Primary Value SIIF reduction initiatives and active risk mitigation and eradication improve the physical,
Health
Creation mental and social wellbeing of workers.

SIIF management and avoidance offsets potential fines, legal fees and workers’
Secondary Value compensation costs. Serious incidents and negligence can result in noncompliance and
Economic
Creation loss of social license to operate having signicant financial impacts. Beyond cost avoidance,
worker productivity is seen to increase in safe environments.

Teams with robust systems for reducing SIIFs will be better able to withstand disruption and
Resilience
overcome challenges while reducing exposure to legal and financial risk.

Organizations focused on reducing SIIFs will see greater trust and participation in safety-
Ethics
related activities, with executive buy-in improving organizational safety culture and trust.

SIIFs have far-reaching consequences impacting colleagues, families and communities.

Society Commitment to and investment in risk mitigation and eradication will reduce the negative
Tertiary Value impact of an organization on society.
Creation

SIIFs can tarnish the brand perception of the organization, impacting employee retention
Reputation and attraction, and inhibit access to finance. SIIF reduction will reduce the risk of
non-compliance and help maintain and win new business.

SIIFs are a key ESG and sustainability metric, the reduction of which will provide valuable
improvements to ESG ratings for organizations, with benefits to financing and insurance. As
Sustainability
ESG reporting maturity on safety increases, we expect to see a greater focus on proactive
leading indicators.

Figure 11. EHS Value Generated Through SIIF Management

Framework Coverage
SIIFs and the associated processes and mitigation strategies are extensively covered in regulations and standards
that are expected to receive only minor updates over the next five years. Guidance on SIIF reduction is provided in
five out of the ten frameworks assessed in this study.

ISO 45001:2018: Managing a robust occupational health and safety program

- Provides information on the benefits of effective SIIF-reducing occupational health and safety programs, including
reduced absenteeism, lower insurance costs and improved worker morale. It also shares recommendations on
how to consistently implement mitigations by leveraging a hazard assessment and risk-based methodology.

- T
 he framework is not globally mandated, and its complexity and resource intensity mean some organizations find
it challenging to implement.

GRI 403 and Corporate Knights Sustainability Rankings: Benchmark performance

- Both frameworks incorporate metrics on SIIFs and related lost time due to injury, helping organizations to gather
information on their management systems, policies, processes and KPIs to compare their performance with
peers and make improvements.

- T
 he content of these frameworks is focused on reporting in a consistent, comparable format rather than offering
guidance on implementation.

INSHPO: Standards for EHS professionals

- Covers 69 competencies related to EHS, including SIIF reduction, focused on knowledge, skills, behavior and
ethical values. It emphasizes the importance of developing capabilities in communication, risk management, and
how health and safety interact with the broader operational environment.

- Implementation is resource-intensive, focused primarily on EHS professionals and legally-required safety-related

activities, and offers little guidance on proactive SIIF reduction measures beyond compliance.

27

< Back to Table of Contents >

ISO 26000:2010: Guidance on social responsibility
- Provides guidance on social responsibility risks associated with operations, including those related to SIIFs.
Encouraging the implementation of effective management systems for social responsibility, engaging
stakeholders in dialogue and encouraging the use of PPE to support SIIF reduction.

- T
 his standard lacks a specific focus on SIIF reduction and can be seen as more targeted at improving external
perception as opposed to driving internal change.

Recommended Initiatives and Programs

A consistent theme throughout the quantitative and qualitative surveys was the importance of having safety
champions and a strong safety culture within an organization. These individuals need to be able to bridge the
communication gaps between SIIF-risk employees and C-level executives and help both stakeholders understand
the benefits of safety initiatives.

“We developed Behavioural Based Safety programs and foster a safety culture among all employees so every
individual can contribute to the safety management program. We do this through participation, consultation, skill
development and employee involvement in risk assessments, and incident and near miss reporting activities.”
– Head of EHS, Steel Producer

The extensive coverage of SIIF reduction initiatives in various frameworks and standards list a number of areas to
address and provide high-level guidance for program implementation:

• Leverage global benchmarks and public or private targets on SIIF reduction provided by industrial peers using
standardized metrics to set targets and track performance

• Educate workers and safety leaders on hazard identification and SIIF risk mitigation processes
• Encourage continuous learning and safety feedback as part of incident investigations and root causes analyses
• Foster a genuine safety culture, where the reporting of safety incidents and ethical conduct are deeply understood
in relation to reducing SIIFs in the workplace

• Create a communication bridge between executive leadership, safety managers and workers most at risk of SIIFs
to ensure safety becomes everybody’s job

• Engage external stakeholders such as customers, investors, insurers and the wider community to promote a
shared sense of social responsibility to address EHS issues, such as SIIFs

• Assess the applicability of EHS technologies and employee wearables and their ability to reduce significant
workplace risks

Metrics and Key Performance Indicators

The lengthy history of organizations managing SIIFs has resulted in broadly understood and adopted metrics,
although these have traditionally been viewed in relation to litigation costs in the wake of SIIF-related incidents.

“There was a shift about 10 years ago – beyond leading indicators like training, near misses, leadership
engagement and presenting these on dashboards. Now, we’re seeing real value in looking at compliance issues and
incident rates and tying these together with workers’ compensation costs.”
– Chief Strategy Officer, EHS Software Company

28

< Back to Table of Contents >

Despite being considered lagging indicators, conventional metrics are still widely used to track SIIFs.
These metrics include:

• Lost time due to injury

• Occupational fatalities
• Hours of safety training
• Rate of usage of PPE for relevant tasks
• Litigation costs due to SIIF events
• Workers’ compensation costs
• Time taken to report SIIFs
However, with advances in technology allowing for the tracking and aggregation of data for reporting on PPE
compliance, training, near misses and incidents, EHS professionals and senior leaders are provided with leading
indicators that offer greater visibility into their SIIF-risk operations. These leading indicators include:

• Rate of engagement with safety culture surveys that assess areas of improvement
• Near miss reporting and root cause analysis recordings
• Worker engagement indicators e.g., participation rates
• Job hazard analyses and safety inspections
• Number of safety-related reports/work orders and time to complete from identification
• Monitoring and tracking equipment reliability, process control and asset integrity to understand
and prevent failure
• Contractor hiring requirements e.g., certifications
• Percentage of equipment downtime
• Number and frequency of corrective actions (elimination, substitution, engineering controls)
• Percentage of senior personnel overlooking critical design review and operatory actions
• Number of repeat findings
By focusing on leading indicators, organizations can take proactive and predictive steps to prevent SIIFs rather than
simply reacting to them after they have already occurred.

29

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Mental Health
Definition and Context
Mental health is defined as a state of mental wellbeing enabling people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their
abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community (World Health Organization, 2022).

“At the core of every thriving business is people. If they aren’t safe and healthy and if they lack a sense
of wellbeing, they won’t be at the top of their game, and neither will their organization.”
– CEO, EHS Management Consultancy

Employers are starting to recognize the negative impact employee mental distress has on productivity, profits
and overall worker health. Prior National Safety Council studies have shown significant relationships between
mental health and physical safety, including that work injuries are more common among workers who experience
more frequent and significant symptoms of mental health problems. A recent NSC survey of 1,500 working adults
between April and May of 2023 found the average rate of injury increased from 12% for workers with no clinically
significant symptoms of depression to 53% amongst those with severe depression; a similar relationship was found
with anxiety symptoms. Eighty percent of the 81 respondents in the New Value of Safety survey said mental health
was already fully or partially embedded into safety programs. Furthermore, 51% of respondents placed mental
health and wellbeing as one of their top two priority safety risk factors (see Figure 12).

What level of priority do you assign to the following human safety risk factors?
Mental health and wellbeing 20% 31% 23% 6% 11% 4% 5%

Injuires and poor health 36% 10% 9% 11% 12% 7% 15%

Reputational damage 11% 16% 19% 17% 7% 12% 17%

Climate hazards 7% 14% 17% 17% 20% 16% 9%

Economic factors 15% 14% 10% 11% 17% 20% 14%

Discrimination in the workplace 7% 6% 11% 21% 12% 21% 21%

Workplace blame culture 4 10% 11% 16% 20% 20% 20%

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7

Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places.

Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.
Source: New Value of Safety Survey

Figure 12. Priority of Mental Health Across Safety Risk Factors

30
Work To Zero 2023
< Back to Table of Contents >
Mental Health EHS Value Creation

Focus Level Value of Safety Rationale

Mental health promotion safeguards worker wellbeing, focusing on reducing stress and
Health
burnout and promoting productivity.

Primary Value Proper consideration of mental health empowers workers to manage it actively and openly,
Sustainability
Creation thus promoting a more sustainable work environment.

Supporting mental health provides a greater work-life balance by minimizing work-related

Society
stress, improving the standard of living and offering positive contribuitions to wider society.

Economic Improved worker wellbeing and health drives enhanced work quality and productivity.

Secondary Value Greater capabilities and support for workers enable them to handle adverse situations,
Resilience
Creation such as stress or trauma and to adapt to new challenges.

Prospective employees, investors and stakeholders are increasingly considering mental

Reputation
health KPIs when considering working at, investing in or purchasing from an organization.

Tertiary Value Managing worker wellbeing and mental health is a focus across ethical operating and
Ethics
Creation supply chain practices.

Figure 13. EHS Value Generated Through Mental Health Initiatives

Framework Coverage
HR functions, EHS teams and senior executives are being tasked with implementing mental health and wellbeing
strategies. In doing this, they are looking toward recognized standards and government regulations for guidance.
Such guidance is provided by five out of the ten frameworks assessed in this study.

CAN/CSA Standard Z1003-13: Implementing a psychological safety management system

- Provides preventative and proactive measures and reporting procedures that minimize work-related hazards
including mental health and HOP principles, such as the implementation of a psychological health and safety
management system – used to identify and mitigate hazards affecting the psychological or mental health and
safety of employees in the workplace. The framework covers mental health resources, infrastructure, event
management and training across EHS and ESG business functions.

- T
 his framework is not mandatory and its complexity and resource intensity means some organizations may
struggle to put recommendations into practice.

ISO 45003:2021: Managing mental health risks as part of EHS

- Provides guidance on managing psychosocial risk within an EHS management system based on the
recommendations within ISO 45001. It includes definitions, organizational responsibilities, implementation
guidelines and examples to help organizations prevent work-related injury and illness while promoting wellbeing
at work.

- T
 his standard outlines a management system for managing mental health, but requires organizations to take
responsibility for identifying and mitigating specific mental health risks.

31

< Back to Table of Contents >

UN Sustainable Development Goals: Mental health is an important pillar in sustainability
- Mental health represents an important pillar in this effort due to its direct impact on health and sustainable
development, mentioned under goal three through targets for reducing mental health diseases and substance
abuse. It also mentions goals four, eight, 10 and 11, relating to people with mental, intellectual and
psychosocial disabilities.

- The SDG goals are extremely broad and do not consider local or regional challenges for addressing mental health
issues, acting more as a wish list rather than providing clear guidance on how to improve organizational
mental health.

GRI 403: Benchmark mental health performance with global peers

- Provides an ESG reporting framework on EHS issues, including mental health in workplaces. It aims to facilitate
optimal physical and mental health by requesting organizations to provide a description of EHS processes
contributing to the identification and elimination of hazards and an explanation of how they plan to maintain
quality and access to such processes for workers.

- T
 his framework does not directly require organizations to implement services to improve mental health, but
rather recommends reporting on existing services. As a result, organizations may lack the drive or focus to launch
initiatives to drive improved mental health and improved mental health management.

INSHPO: Promotes awareness of EHS risk management alongside mental health

- The framework promotes physical and mental health wellness through the development and implementation of
hazard identification and risk mitigation processes.

- While the framework provides guidance on the roles and expectations of EHS specialists and their responsibilities
with regard to mental health, the framework does not provide clear guidance on how to improve or implement
mental health initiatives.

Recommended Initiatives and Programs

To deliver improvements in mental health, organizations need to adopt and embed systems and processes to
identify and recognize mental health challenges. Critically, these must be accompanied by investments in initiatives
or services that can help address emerging mental health challenges. At the same time, there needs to be a
leadership-championed program to normalize the need to monitor and manage mental health. This will help break
down some long-established negative notions toward the discussion of mental health.

“While firms are taking steps to address cultural barriers, not enough is being done to truly embed mental health
in day-to-day work culture. There is still a stigma around mental health, and people are not comfortable speaking
up about issues. This leaves a gap between implementing mental health policies and practically improving mental
health. Frameworks are able to offer theoretical steps for firms to implement policies that improve mental health
but lack coverage in addressing cultural barriers to the problem.”
– VP of Sustainable Finance Advisory at a Financial Services Firm

32
Work To Zero 2023
< Back to Table of Contents >
Fostering a safe and open working culture, where team members can speak openly about personal health issues
or health risks, is vital to avoid exacerbating workplace health conditions. While the frameworks provide little
actionable guidance on managing mental health within high-risk and/or high-stress workplaces, there exist actions
for managers and executives to consider:

• Allow flexible working hours and job rotations

• Introduce continuous training plans and appraisals
• Offer substance misuse, addiction treatment and recovery support
• Implement processes to respond to issues that can impact the mental health and safety of workers
• Ensure stakeholder education, awareness and understanding in regard to the nature and dynamics of stigma,
mental illness, safety and health
• Offer resources, such as counseling and support groups, to workers who are experiencing mental health
difficulties related to the organization or from personal issues
• Provide information about factors in the workplace that can adversely affect mental health
• Identify potential critical events where psychological suffering, illness or injury is involved, or likely to occur, while
respecting the confidentiality and privacy of all parties

Metrics and Key Performance Indicators

Mental health is challenging to measure as it relies heavily on self-reporting and subjective experiences and may be
affected by factors outside the control of the worker’s employer.

“Many environmental valuations and human capital data points come from surveys. This could be applied to
safety, but I don’t think this would always work so well for worker safety. Might be too much of an emphasis on ‘on
a scale of 1 to 10, how happy are you?’. This doesn’t get very far and is not really actionable.”
– Chief Strategy Officer, EHS Software Company

Academics and regulators are working on developing more robust metrics for measuring worker mental health, but
metrics organizations can leverage to start measuring and reporting on mental health in workplaces are:

• Training and initiative uptake

• Awareness surveys
• Employee churn and burnout
• Surveys of worker satisfaction
• Gambling, substance misuse rates
• Employee assistance program utilization metrics
• Pharmacy benefit program audits
• Workers’ compensation claims data

33
Work To Zero 2023
< Back to Table of Contents >
 Psychological Safety
Definition and Context
Psychological safety provides individuals with a strong sense of inclusion amongst leaders and peers in the
workforce. Individuals are given a space to learn, are empowered to challenge unsafe conditions and contribute
diverse ideas without fearing negative consequences. Organizations create psychologically safe environments by
intentionally fostering a culture where employees feel safe to speak up and by having policies and procedures that
support the individual’s promotion of safe practices. With an empowered workforce, individuals at all levels of the
organization can support one another and promote reciprocal trust, ultimately saving lives.

“When you consider safety, you can no longer just consider physical safety. You now have to understand non-work-
related aspects, such as how hard is it for the employee to get to work. What is their health profile? Do they have
any illnesses? Do they have a family and support system outside of work? Without understanding this, you can’t
truly define worker safety.” – Director, Federal Agency

Psychological safety isn’t a new concept but one that has seen a resurgence in recent years due to the pandemic,
demonstrating how closely connected it is to work life, productivity and overall worker health. However, with the
rising focus on mental health and wellbeing, psychological safety remains a lower priority for organizations over the
next two years when compared to other emerging safety factors (see Figure 14).

Of the following safety initiatives, which will you expect to be prioritized in

the next two years?

Total worker health 64% 32% 25% 5%

Mental health 31% 21% 30% 19%

Human and
organizational 19% 35% 25% 22%
performance

Psychological safety 11% 14% 21% 54%

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4

Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places.

Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.
Source: New Value of Safety Survey

Figure 14. Lower Prioritization of Psychological Safety in the Next Two Years

34

< Back to Table of Contents >

Psychological Safety EHS Value Creation

Value Creation
Value of Safety Rationale
Level

Improved working conditions reduce the risk of mental health issues, stress and fatigue,
Health
which all can contribute to incidents in the workplace.
Primary Value
Creation
Psychologically safe environments strengthen communication and team culture, promoting
Resilience
agility and the ability to manage business shocks and challenges.

Improved working environments promote happier workforces, which in turn increases

Economic employee retention, engagement and productivity while reducing absenteeism. This will
positively impact business performance and revenues.
Psychologically safe environments enable employees to raise concerns without fear of
Tertiary Value
Ethics retribution and increase accountability. When employees feel safe, they are more willing to
Creation
share their ideas and challenges, and are more likely to make ethical decisions.
Prospective employees, investors and customers are increasingly considering psychological
Reputation safety-related KPIs (e.g. culture, work-life balance and promotion opportunities) before
making decisions.

Figure 15. EHS Value Generated Through Psychological Safety Initiatives

Framework Coverage
Standards impacting psychological health and safety in the workplace provide support across prevention,
promotion, guidance and implementation of mental health and wellness initiatives and processes. Psychological
safety guidance is provided in five of the ten frameworks assessed in this study.

CAN/CSA Z1003-13: Define a psychologically healthy and safe workplace

- Provides information on what employers can do to create psychologically healthy and safe workplaces to
protect mental health, thus improving talent retention, employee engagement, productivity, safety and profits.
The framework has a particular focus on implementing a psychological health and safety management system
(PHSMS) and undertaking performance monitoring measurements to ensure objectives are met, psychological
safety data is recorded, risk mitigation arrangements are operating effectively and workplace improvement
opportunities are identified.

ISO 45003:221: Improve psychological safety through better job satisfaction and productivity
- Provides information on how to recognize the psychosocial hazards that can affect workers and the economic
impact of psychological safety on an organization and society.

- T
 he framework acknowledges the lack of trained workers to manage psychological health and therefore offers
top-level actions to manage hazards.

INSHPO: The role of psychological safety in an EHS professional’s work

- INSHPO stipulates that EHS practitioners are expected to have an understanding of the principles of
psychological safety and a basic grasp of how to implement standard procedures addressing these risks. EHS
professionals on the other hand require more comprehensive knowledge, requiring the ability to integrate, adapt
and apply psychological safety themes and actions to all relevant areas and situations.

- T
 he framework does not provide clear guidance on how to improve or implement psychological safety-related
initiatives but focuses on the safety professionals’ responsibilities.

GRI 403: Reporting on worker-related hazards

- Provides guidance on mitigating “worker-related hazards,” which includes psychosocial factors like verbal abuse,
harassment and bullying.

- T
 he framework acknowledges psychological safety-related hazards as part of a broader set of work-related
hazards, resulting in non-specific recommendations.

35

< Back to Table of Contents >

UN Sustainable Development Goals: Psychological safety to promote peaceful and inclusive societies.
- Psychological safety is represented through goals to reduce all forms of violence, especially amongst the most
vulnerable (e.g., children). It is mainly covered in goal 16, relating to monitoring the proportion of the population
subjected to physical violence, psychological violence and sexual violence in the previous 12 months.

- T
 he SDG goals are extremely broad and do not explore the impacts of psychological safety in the workplace.

Recommended Initiatives and Programs:

To deliver effective psychological safety improvements, organizations must encourage leader-engaged cultural
change. This can be achieved by outlining clear objectives, measuring performance and ensuring leadership buy-in.
Key areas to improve are risk mitigation, cost-effectiveness, recruitment and retention, organizational excellence
and sustainability.

“When you consider workers, such as those in health care or rescue professions, they often put themselves at risk
both physically and mentally during catastrophic events like flooding and fires. Responsible firms need to make
sure relevant psychological treatment and initiatives are in place to support these workers.”
– CEO, EHS Management Consultancy

Practical guidance on embedding psychological safety in safety programs is limited due to the immeasurable
nature of the theme. Guidance tends to remain high level and leaves lots of room for interpretation. Of the assessed
frameworks, only two provided advice on improving workplace psychological health and safety, which included:

• Perform regular staff meetings, surveys and informal discussions to learn what areas of the business need to
be improved.

• Develop and regularly review written policy statements that clearly outline the organizations’ intentions to improve
psychological health. Formulate commitments to working collaboratively with employees to create and sustain a
psychologically and physically healthy and safe work environment.

• Communicate policies with workers (verbally, emails, bulletins etc.).

• Assign leaders who are accountable for driving policies. If needed, hire new leaders with the ability to
communicate policies to others within the organization. Organizations should ascertain the psychological safety
awareness of prospective senior staff during the hiring process through scenario-based interviews.

• Organizations should ensure workers agree with policies and actively participate in the development,
implementation and continual improvement of future psychological safety initiatives. Organizations can
implement specific committees or sub-committees for psychological health and safety in the workplace to
encourage participation and drive communication.

• Identify barriers to workplace safety by assessing hazards. Organizations should assess factors, such as current
psychological support, organizational culture, civility and respect, job demands, growth opportunities, work/life
balance and protection of physical safety.

• Set realistic goals to address identified barriers and communicate all actions to staff. For example, provide
interventions like PPE and lone worker technology should employees raise safety concerns.

• Create an environment where workers are encouraged to speak up about their feelings, doubts and shortcomings.
Workers should feel like a mistake can be made and reported without unnecessary repercussions. Organizations
may wish to also further develop their training regimes to ensure workers are fully competent and confident so
risks can be addressed before mistakes lead to SIIF events.

• Offer opportunities for employee growth and development through performance reviews and training.
• Determine the extent to which the PHSMS policy, objectives and targets are being met. Polices should be
regularly reviewed and updated.

• The organization should encourage workers to take their entitled breaks (e.g., lunchtime, sick time, vacation time,
earned days off, parental leave).

36

< Back to Table of Contents >

Metrics and Key Performance Indicators:
Psychological safety covers a broad range of topics that promote positive working environments, organizational
resilience as well as enhanced engagement, performance and productivity. Psychological safety is not something
an organization can achieve overnight, but rather a continuous process to improve employee wellbeing and culture.
Therefore, it can be ambiguous and difficult to quantify.

“We perform engagement and wellbeing surveys annually to identify gaps in our safety programs, trends and
improvement opportunities. Extra programs are put in place to drive improvement.”
– Director of HSE, Footwear Manufacturing Company

Existing frameworks have provided simple metrics and guidance to help organizations better understand how they
are currently performing and in turn, kick start their psychological safety journey. They include:

• Rate of absenteeism
• Rate of turnover
• Short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) costs
• Worker engagement indicators e.g., participation rates
While there is no correct metric or action organizations can implement to “achieve” psychological safety,
many performance-related steps exist that organizations can take to help improve employee morale and
reduce absenteeism, including:

• Regular surveys to ensure policies are still relevant and improve worker safety
• End of employment interviews to understand employee turnover
• Data from social media websites and other websites e.g., Glassdoor, to better understand
employee feelings
• Access to anonymous hotlines and staff suggestion boxes
• Employee and family assistance programs, which give workers access to free helplines when distressed
• Percentage of leadership actively promoting psychological safety best practices
• Baseline assessments of workplace determinants of psychological health (e.g., environmental, physical, job
requirement, staffing levels)
• Psychological injury and illness statistics
• Return-to-work programs
• Incident numbers and the use of EHS mobile apps to drive incident and near-miss reporting
• Recognition and awards schemes, which include employee accomplishment awards and commitment to work
awards
• Worker fair pay
• Respectful workplace policies
• Wellness programs
• Work/life balance programs

37

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Environment, Social and Governance
Definition and Context:
ESG refers to issues that are identified or assessed in responsible investment processes. Environmental factors
are issues relating to the quality and functioning of the natural environment and natural systems. Social factors
are issues relating to the rights, wellbeing and interests of people and communities. Governance factors are
issues relating to the governance of companies and other investee entities (UN Principles for Responsible
Investment, 2023). Safety falls across all three ESG pillars, and the growing recognition of mental health and DEI
is providing more incentives for safety programs of this kind to be understood within the context of corporate ESG
strategies. While external ESG ratings and scores are not being extensively leveraged to quantify and assess safety
performance, safety professionals have an increasing role to play in ESG initiatives (see Figure 16).

In what way does, or will, the safety profession play a role in each of the
following ESG initiatives?
Voluntary sustainability
reporting 24% 43% 22% 8% 1

Climate risk analysis

to physical assets 24% 33% 24% 18%

Carbon emissions management

and reporting 20% 59% 10% 10%

Product stewardship and

sustainable product design 20% 39% 14% 24% 2

Supply chain sustainability

and assurance
18% 45% 16% 18% 4

Social impact 12% 55% 14% 14% 2

ESG financial data management 8% 35% 29% 24% 2

ESG reputational
risk management 6% 55% 27% 10% 4

Safety currently owns the initiative Safety currently supports the initiative
Safety will begin to have a role in the next 2 years No phone for safety involvement
Don’t know
Notes: N=49. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.
Source: Verantix Survey

Figure 16. Role of the Safety Profession in ESG Initiatives

While safety and ESG are interconnected, decarbonization and plastic reduction remain the key focus for corporate
ESG agendas. Although safety is yet to be fully incorporated into the context of ESG, it is starting to emerge through
the lens of Human Capital as evidenced in the Capital Coalitions Natural Capital Protocol, and Social & Human
Capital Protocol (Capitals Coalition, 2023).

Framework Coverage
Safety guidance across key ESG themes has risen as a result of global sustainability pressures and initiatives. The
framework assessment revealed a widespread focus on ESG themes, such as gender equality, worker rights, health
and wellbeing, reducing energy consumption and emissions, good governance, and commitment to laws
and regulations.

38

< Back to Table of Contents >

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Definition and Context:
Diversity is defined as the characteristics of differences and similarities between people (ISO, 2021). Equity is
defined as the principle that people should be subject to policies, processes and practices that are fair, as far
as possible, and free from bias (ISO, 2021). Inclusion is defined as the process of including all stakeholders in
organizational contexts (ISO, 2021).

“Although safety comes under the ‘S’ pillar of ESG, corporate executives often only think of DEI issues.
For many business leaders the ‘S’ is vague and poorly defined.” – CSO, EHS Software Company

DEI remains an emerging safety area that is seen as partially embedded in safety programs compared to other ESG
themes, including environment, sustainability and governance. Although nascent, DEI is a focus area for businesses
to fully establish in their safety programs going forward and will receive increasing coverage as NSC and LRF plan
to release dedicated studies on this theme later in 2023.

DEI EHS Value Creation:

Value Creation
Value of Safety Rationale
Level

A diverse leadership team can ensure sustainability goals are kept within scope, and
Sustainability
improve trust between stakeholders.

Primary Value A diverse and inclusive leadership team can reduce siloed and one-track thinking,
Resilience
Creation positioning the team more effectively to tackle problems and manage risks.

The full and effective participation and inclusion in society of all groups, including those
Society who are vulnerable, provides and increases opportunities for all organizations as well as the
people concerned.

In the wake of the global pandemic, prospective employees are prioritizing DEI factors, along
Secondary Value with work-life balance and wellbeing. Including a diverse team in company decision-making
Reputation
Creation can enhance an organization’s responsiveness to the preferences of an increasingly diverse
customer base.

There is a demonstrated positive link between gender equality and economic and social
Economic development. Additionally, without a DEI agenda, discrimination in the workplace can lead to
reduced productivity and higher employee turnover.
Tertiary Value
Creationn Health Without a DEI agenda, discrimination in the workplace can lead to mental illness.

Ethics A DEI agenda can increase trust and the perception of fairness amongst employees.

Figure 17. EHS Value Generated Through DEI Initiatives

39
Work To Zero 2023
< Back to Table of Contents >
 Framework Coverage:
While regulatory coverage of discrimination due to protected characteristics (such as race, sex, religion, orientation,
etc.) varies by geography, requirements are expected to become more stringent over the next five years (see Figure 18).

For each of the following safety risk factors, how are safety regulations
expected to develop over the next five years?

Occupational
physical safety 25% 65% 5% 5%

Safety risks arising from

climate hazards 45% 40% 5% 5% 5%

Discrimination due to race,

sex, religion or ability
40% 45% 10% 5%

Management of
workplace culture
40% 30% 30% 10%

Mental health risks from anxiety, 30% 30% 35% 5%

stress, burnout and fatigue

Work-related financial stability 15% 45% 20% 20%

Statistical or AI-based technologies 35% 20% 20% 25%

introducing unfair bias or discrimination to...

ESG management and reporting 20% 30% 35% 15%

Minimum acceptable sleep 20% 10% 10% 20%

and rest to perform

Regulations will be increasingly stringent Regulation will receive minor updates

Regulations will remain static Regulation will be developed for the first time
I don’t know
Notes: N=20. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.
Source: Verantix Survey

Figure 18. Increasing Regulations for DEI in the Next Five Years

DEI guidance is provided in six of the ten frameworks assessed in this study.

ISO 26000: Improve DEI with a focus on gender equality

- Provides information on the benefits of DEI as well as recommendations on principles and programs to uphold and
undertake to improve equality. The framework has a particular focus on providing actions to target and eliminate
gender bias and guide corporate DEI strategies.

- The framework does not include recommendations on metrics to track the performance of the DEI programs.

Corporate Knights Sustainability Rankings and Just Capital: Benchmark performance

- Both frameworks incorporate several DEI KPIs into their corporate social responsibility rankings. The criteria provided
in these rankings can help identify relevant safety metrics to track and support external benchmarking across
equality, diversity and turnover.

- These frameworks do not incorporate any implementation recommendations. Limited transparency was provided on
the scoring methodology and criticism over ratings focused on the quantity of data instead of the quality
of disclosures.

40

< Back to Table of Contents >

UN SDGs: Facilitate target-setting and sustainability planning
- DEI is incorporated in goals to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all (four), achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls (five) and reduce inequality
within and among countries (10) of the UN SDGs. This framework can be used to guide sustainability planning and
provide guidance on setting public or private performance targets for 2030.

- The UN SDGs provide guidance on global goals and do not provide recommendations relating to implementation or
actions to achieve targets.

CAN/CSA Z1003-13: Integrate DEI into psychological safety programs

- DEI factors are important to consider when executing psychological safety programs supporting the unique needs
across a workforce. This framework provides guidance on how to collaborate with employees to effectively roll out
these initiatives.

- T
 his framework does not provide any metrics or initiative recommendations and focuses primarily on psychological
safety.

SASB: Industry-specific, and ESG-aligned reporting

- T
 he extent to which DEI is covered in SASB differs between industries. For example, health care and biotechnology,
tech, and financial and professional services standards incorporate several DEI metrics. However, these will be
replaced by the ISSB standards in 2023 to create a building block approach for ESG reporting. These standards will
allow national and regional jurisdictions to build upon global baselines and set additional standards serving their
jurisdictional needs. The ISSB is utilizing a literature review and targeted consultations to explore how DEI is currently
addressed in disclosures and how this can be improved.

- T
 his framework does not provide any initiative recommendations.

Recommended Initiatives and Programs:

To deliver concrete DEI improvements, top-down/leader engaged culture change is essential. In conjunction with
commitments from management, businesses should invest in training programs and flexible working policies that cater
to the diverse needs of their employees.

“Change should start with an announcement from the top management, followed by significant training and a non-
monetary incentive mechanism. Part of this change should include putting in place alternative and flexible ways
of work that are really designed for the needs of the employees, including people with families and kids.”
– VP of Sustainable Finance Advisory at Financial Services Firm

While practical guidance on embedding the full breadth of DEI initiatives in safety programs is scarce, the assessed
frameworks do highlight several key areas to address and provide considerations for program implementation,
which include:

• Leveraging external benchmarks to set private or public diversity targets

• Reviewing the diversity (gender, race, orientation, etc.) split in an organization’s governing structure and management
• Reviewing the treatment of different populations in recruitment, training opportunities and job assignments
• Ensuring equal remuneration for different populations for work of equal value
• Assessing differential impacts on different populations concerning workplace and community safety and health
• Ensuring organizational decisions incorporate equal consideration of the needs of different populations, such as
appropriate PPE for both men and women
• Supporting individual workers to seek assistance internally or externally in consideration of the unique needs of
diverse populations
• Ensuring different populations all benefit from the organization’s contributions to community development
• Integrating ethical, social, environmental and gender equality criteria in its purchasing, distribution and contracting
policies and practices to improve consistency with social responsibility objectives and targets

41

< Back to Table of Contents >

Metrics and Key Performance Indicators:
The expansive definition of DEI includes factors, such as culture and how workers are perceived by their employer,
which are subjective and complex to measure.

“Surveys of workers on satisfaction scores can help to tease out the value of the attributes of safety and
understand the broader impact on worker families and communities.” – Technical Director, Consultancy Firm

Despite these challenges that academia and standards bodies are working to mitigate, there are a range of simple
metrics businesses can leverage to start evaluating, measuring and reporting on their DEI performance.

Diversity metrics:
• Non-males in executive management
• Non-males on boards
• Racial diversity among executives
• Racial diversity on the Board of Directors
• Workforce demographics (beyond gender and race including ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, physical
abilities and ideologies)

Equity metrics:
• CEO-to-median worker pay
• Wage violations
• Living wage
• Fair play score
• Fair play rating (living wage portion)
Policies and legal metrics:
• Discrimination controversies
• EEOC violations and worker grievance fines
• Diversity, equity and inclusion policies

42

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Environment and Sustainability
Definition and Context
The environment is defined as the, “natural surroundings in which an organization operates, including air, water, land,
natural resources, flora, fauna, people, outer space and their interrelationships” (ISO, 2010). Sustainability is defined
as the ability of a company to sustainably maintain resources and relationships with and manage its dependencies
and impacts within its whole business ecosystem over the short, medium and long term. Sustainability is a
condition for a company to access over time the resources and relationships needed (such as financial, human
and natural), ensuring their proper preservation, development and regeneration, to achieve its goals (IFRS, 2022).
Environment and sustainability can be understood as, “the responsible management and protection of the
natural world.”

“When it comes to sustainability, credibility and reputation are critical topics. For example, due to reputational risks,
banks won’t finance a company that has sustainability controversies or conflicts.”
– VP of Sustainable Finance Advisory at a Financial Services Firm

Environment and sustainability is already fully or partially embedded in safety programs due to established areas,
such as chemical compliance and waste and water management already sitting within the environment, health
and safety wheelhouse. Environment and sustainability is a high priority to be incorporated into safety programs
over the next two years, above other ESG initiatives such as DEI, ESG and reputation management, and social and
governance (see Figure 19). This is likely due to the growing focus on GHG emissions management and climate
risks from stakeholders and regulatory bodies.

Which of the following ESG initiatives will you expect to be prioritized in

safety programs in the next two years?

Environment and
sustainability
38% 16% 23% 22%

Social and governance 20% 36% 28% 16%

Diversity, equity
and inclusion 25% 25% 17% 33%

ESG and reputation

management 17% 23% 31% 28%

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4

Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places.

Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.
Source: New Value of Safety Survey

Figure 19. Prioritization of ESG Initiatives in Safety Programs

43

< Back to Table of Contents >

Environment and Sustainability EHS Value Creation:
Value Creation
Value of Safety Rationale
Level

Safety initiatives that incorporate environment and sustainability directly benefit the natural
Environment environment. For example, by incorporating waste reduction initiatives and regenerating
natural spaces.
Organizations can gain a competitive advantage by meeting customer demands for
Economic sustainable products as well as investor demands for organizations to set strong
decarbonization targets and policies.
Primary Value
Creation Health Maintaining air and water quality directly impacts human physical health.

Safe and sustainable operations are integral for maintaining a sustainable economy and
Sustainability
society for all.

Environmental degradation, resource abuse and pollution event controversies can negatively
Reputation
affect an organization’s reputation and credibility.

Corporate environment and sustainability agendas often include ESG risk and climate risk
Resilience
management, which helps to develop resilience.

Ethical business practices are integral to environment and sustainability initiatives,

Secondary Value
Ethics such as due diligence practices across human rights, worker conditions as well as
Creation
environmental protection.

By sustaining natural capital, community wellbeing can be preserved. For example, time
Society
spent in green spaces can benefit mental health.

Figure 20. EHS Value Generated Through Environment and Sustainability Initiatives

Framework Coverage:
Environment and sustainability guidance is provided in five out of the ten frameworks assessed in this study.

ISO 26000: Inform sustainability decision-making

- Unpacks the following environmental issues: pollution prevention, sustainable resource use, climate change
mitigation and adaptation as well as biodiversity and natural habitat protection. It lists actions for corporate
executives on these topics and recommends using the ISO 14000 series as technical tools to further assist
organizations in systematically addressing environmental issues. By giving clear strategy and action suggestions
for organizations, this framework can be deployed to shape sustainable decision-making and strategic planning.

- The framework does not include recommendations on metrics to track the performance of environment and
sustainability programs.

Corporate Knights Sustainability Rankings and Just Capital: Benchmark performance

- Both frameworks incorporate several environment and sustainability KPIs into their corporate social responsibility
rankings. The criteria provided in these rankings can help identify relevant safety metrics to track and support
external benchmarking across GHG emissions, water and waste management.

- These frameworks do not incorporate any implementation recommendations. Limited transparency was provided
on the scoring methodology and criticism over ratings that are focused on the quantity of data instead of the
quality of disclosures.

44

< Back to Table of Contents >

UN SDGs: Guide sustainability strategy coverage
- Environment and sustainability themes are incorporated across the UN SDGs, but they are crucial to the following:
ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (seven), promote sustained, inclusive
and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all (eight), build resilient
infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation (nine), ensure sustainable
consumption and production patterns (12), take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (13),
conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development (14) and
protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (15).

- The UN SDGs provide guidance on global goals which can be used to guide sustainability strategies, but they do
not provide recommendations relating to implementation or actions to achieve targets.

SASB: Industry-specific and ESG aligned reporting

- Although sustainability reporting is at the core of the SASB standards, the extent to which environment and
sustainability metrics are included varies across industries, with GHG emissions management, water, waste and
energy management addressed to differing levels of detail. For example, energy-intensive or heavily polluting
industries including manufacturing, construction and transport, must report direct scope one emissions. The
SASB standards are being built upon and replaced by the ISSB standards in 2023 to create a building block
approach for ESG reporting. These standards will allow national and regional jurisdictions to build upon global
baselines and set additional standards serving their jurisdictional needs. The ISSB will incorporate climate-related
disclosures from the TCFD recommendations.

- This framework does not provide broader guidance on corporate sustainability topics or suggested action points.

Recommended Initiatives and Programs:

Concrete actions to enhance natural spaces, reduce pollution and mitigate negative environmental impacts must be
connected with cultural change and ambition from executive leaders to drive safety and sustainability success.

“Boots on the ground environmental remediation is important for corporations and action starts with cultural
change, including allocating safety champions.” – Technical Director, Consulting Firm

Businesses should leverage materiality and risk assessments to understand their corporate impact and identify
priority initiatives. ISO 26000 provides an extensive list of approaches and strategies that organizations should
assess and employ as part of their environmental management activities. Recommendations include general
approaches as well as specific action points for pollution prevention, sustainable resource use, climate change
mitigation and adaption, biodiversity and natural habitat restoration. Hence, corporate executives should drive
boots-on-the-ground environment and sustainability action with the practical, specific guidance provided in ISO
26000 while ensuring this is backed up by cultural change and ambition from executive leaders.

45

< Back to Table of Contents >

Metrics and Key Performance Indicators:
As environment and sustainability is a broad topic, there are a range of metrics available that businesses can
leverage to start evaluating, measuring and reporting on performance across their material issues.

Air Pollution
• NOx productivity
• NOx emissions
• Sox productivity
• Sox emissions
• Air pollution (pollution reduction portion)
• Particulate matter productivity
• Particulate matter emissions
• Mercury emissions
• Lead emissions to the air
Water and Waste
• Water productivity
• Total water withdrawn
• Total volume of water withdrawn from groundwater
• Total volume of water withdrawn from surface water
• Water consumption
• Percentage of total water withdrawn in regions with high or extremely high baseline water stress
• Waste productivity
• VOC productivity
• Resource use (resource efficiency portion)
Energy and Emissions
• Renewable energy percentage
• Energy productivity
• GHG productivity
• Scope one and two greenhouse gas emissions
Sustainability Policies
• Clean revenue
• Clean investment
• Climate commitments (climate change portion)
• Sustainability pay link
• Supplier sustainability score
• Sustainable products and services (sustainable products portion)

46

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Ethics and Governance
Definition and Description
Ethics is a guiding principle that implies moral conduct and honorable behavior, showing consideration to the rights
and interests of others (Verma, S. and Prakash U.M., 2011). Business ethics attempts to apply moral norms and
values to business procedures and institutions (Tayşir and Pazarcık, 2013). Governance refers to all processes of
governing, the institutions, processes and practices through which issues of common concern are decided upon
and regulated. Good governance adds a normative or evaluative attribute to the process of governing (United
Nations Human Rights Office). In a well-functioning business, the ethics of an organization are cemented and
protected through its governance structure.

“Since the pandemic, it is more important than ever to think holistically about business performance. As a result,
ESG and EHS should be ready to face the difficulties of creating ethical and sustainable businesses by enhancing
health and safety.” – ESG and Sustainability Senior Consultant, Financial Services Firm

Ethics and governance are elements increasingly featured in safety programs. Social (which can be considered a
close proxy for ethics) and governance initiatives are already fully embedded into safety programs among 40% of
the respondents we spoke with in this study (see Figure 21).

To what extent do you see, or expect to see, the following ESG initiatives
intergrated into safety programs?

Environment and
48% 37% 10% 5%
sustainability

Social and governance 40% 42% 14% 41

Diversity, equity 28% 51% 16% 22

and inclusion

ESG-related reputation
management 23% 52% 22% 2

Fully embedded Partially embedded

Will be embedded in the next two years Not embedded, no plans to embed
Don’t know
Notes: N=81. Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5% are written as numbers.
Source: New Value of Safety Survey

Figure 21. Integration of ESG Initiatives into Safety Programs

47

< Back to Table of Contents >

Ethics and Governance EHS Value Creation

Value Creation
Value of Safety Rationale
Level

Primary Value Having a considered set of ethics that drives and influences the governance structure of an
Ethics
Creation organization will promote increased trust among employees and other stakeholders.

An ethical and well-governed company does not cut corners for short-term gains and
Health thus reduces the risk of injuries, fatalities or poor health for workers, customers and the
community.

Organizations with strong ethics and governance structures are increasingly attractive to
Secondary Value investors who view poor performance in these areas as an enterprise risk. A robust ethics
Economic
Creation and governance regime also drives best practices by employees and other stakeholders,
reducing the risk of non-compliance fines or operational shutdowns.

From decisions around product design to the approach to managing environmental risks,
Environmental well-considered ethics and governance structures reduce the risk of environmental harm
and can promote environmental benefits.

An organization with ethical principles will typically recognize the value of sustainability and
Sustainability through a strong governance structure, will truly commit to the sustainability goals of the
organization.

Strong ethics and governance promote decision-making for the long-term success of the
Resilience
organization.

Tertiary

An organization with strong ethics and governance will better avoid society-harming
Society
practices, such as fraud, corruption or exploitation.

Organizations with strong ethics and governance will be better able to build trust with the
Reputation
community, investors, insurers and customers.

Figure 22. EHS Value Generated Through Ethics and Governance

Framework Coverage
Adopting appropriate ethical standards and particularly adopting a robust governance approach is already
controlled by legislation in many jurisdictions across the world. Guidance on ethics and governance is also provided
in three of the ten frameworks assessed as part of this study:

INSHPO: Establishing an ethical safety culture

- Covers 69 competencies related to occupational health and safety, including guidance for setting corporate
direction for occupational health and safety by applying high-level strategic skills, and bringing in leaders
who influence and mentor internal and external stakeholders. This is to develop an emphasis on critical risk
identification and management and ethics and governance through encouraging the promotion and management
of safety culture and sustainability.

- Implementation is resource-intensive, focused primarily on EHS professionals and legally-required safety-related

activities, and it offers little guidance on proactive ethical and governance measures.

48

< Back to Table of Contents >

ISO 26000:2010: Improving external perceptions of ethics and governance
- Provides guidance on creating and managing a sustainable, socially and environmentally-responsible
organization, including worker safety, human development and social dialogue. It examines the fundamental
impact of ethics and governance in an organization establishing and sustaining legitimate and productive
relationships between workers, communities, customers, investors and regulators.

- This framework can be seen more to improve the external – ethical and governance – perception of organizations
rather than driving internal change to support the new value of safety.

ISO 45001:2018: Creating robust and ethical EHS programs

- Provides guidance for workplace health and safety, offering detailed guidance on creating and managing effective
EHS programs, reducing workplace incidents, absenteeism, reducing insurance costs, health and safety culture
and morale. Standardized implementation and metrics provide external viewers the ability to benchmark against
peers and assess ethics and governance, find gaps in safety programs and promote communication across an
organization.

- This framework is voluntary, and its complexity and resource intensity mean some organizations may not be able
to implement it.

Initiatives and Implementation Programs

While leadership buy-in is a critical first step, there are additional implementation programs available to
organizations to encourage ethical practices and to establish good governance of operations:

• Encourage a company culture with freedom to express concerns and raise questions, to ensure issues are
reported, and where there is trust and transparency across all stakeholders

• Develop a sense of ownership at every level of the enterprise, such that the ethical impact and benefits from good
governance of the organization are shared by workers, managers and executives

• Establish a documented risk mitigation process, including hazard identification, hazard elimination, assessments
of risk levels for the hazards, preventive and protective measures and risk controls

• Unify executive business functions such that safety-related ethical, governance and other safety activities are
harmonized

Metrics and Key Performance Indicators

Measuring ethical and governance safety-related performance is similarly difficult to measuring ESG and
sustainability performance. However, some established techniques to gauge sentiment and report on such
performance are as follows:

Ethics metrics:
• Community discussion groups
• Paid sick leave
• Fines paid
• Sanctions deductions
Governance metrics:
• Employee satisfaction surveys
• CEO-average employee pay
• Tax paid
• Employee turnover
• Pension fund quality

49

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Recommendations and Conclusion
• Assess the extent to which your strategy, policies and procedures address the full scope of modern EHS beyond
physical safety and short-term environmental impacts*

• Review your activities against key safety frameworks to align and identify the coverage gaps with respect to
legacy and emerging EHS themes

• Perform a holistic assessment, including materiality and risk analyses, to identify how these themes impact
workers in your organization and the value they can generate to support initiative prioritization*

• Engage relevant functions to update the overarching safety and sustainability strategy, align with key frameworks
and assign KPIs to track performance

• Develop programs (such as TWH or the pillars of ESG) to establish a hierarchy of accountability and organize
workstreams (such as mental health or DEI initiatives)

• Create cross-functional committees to eradicate siloes between safety, ESG and HR, and designate Safety
Champions to drive ownership of and engagement with the safety strategy

• Develop a transformation and investment plan focused on value creation to gain leadership buy-in and support
and encourage a leader-engaged safety culture

• Create an implementation plan and delegate ownership of specific activities at the functional and individual levels
that will close the targeted gaps in your safety program*

• Develop a communication program to roll out the New Value of Safety program and the benefits this will drive,
leveraging training and engagement tools to drive adoption

• Establish mechanisms enabling learning and feedback loops that drive continuous improvement and increase the
agility and impact of safety programs*

Recommendations that include an asterisk are suggested for those just beginning their journey.

In addition, this research has been leveraged to develop a targeted Activation Guide for stakeholders to support
continuous improvement and help organizations evolve with the changing landscape of EHS available on the NSC
website. This guide enables businesses to address safety holistically and mitigate risks from multiple directions.
Regardless of current maturity level, there is an opportunity to benefit from this approach. This Activation Guide
serves to drive action on several fronts, as shown in Figure 23 below:

Business Financial Influencer

Community Community Community

•M
 ature operating Ratings and Ranking
Safety and Health Investors and •U
 nderstand truer
philosophy Agencies
Leaders Insurance Agencies comprehensive
•M
 ature core value and valuation
EHS metrics of safety and Frameworks
ESG/Sustainability health Developers
• I ntegrate elevated
Leaders • Mature social •M
 ature social
and emerging
issues pillar and safety pillar and safety Government
metrics to risk vs. metrics to risk vs. Regulators
• I nfluence internal luck-based luck-based
Business leaders and gain
Leaders/Boards (decision-making) •E
 nhance data • Incentivize/ NGOs and
seat at the table capture of safety encourage Researchers
and health value business
• I nfluence creation and/or community to
investors to care/ destruction mature Community/
differentiate Advocates

Figure 23: New Value of Safety Stakeholder Actions

50

< Back to Table of Contents >

Future Direction
The New Value of Safety Report represents a first step toward a more comprehensive understanding of the state
of safety in the present day, as well as a more nuanced and impactful conversation with respect to its positioning
within emerging topics, such as ESG and DEI. However, numerous gaps have been identified throughout the
research and analysis contributing to this work. NSC and Lloyd’s Register Foundation will continue to conduct
research, convene stakeholders and educate leaders on these critical topics – and we encourage other researchers,
business leaders, investors, insurers, NGO and government leaders, and subject matter experts to do the same.

Some of the activities NSC is considering for the future include:

• Continued research and analysis on the landscape of ESG and other critical topics, including the publication of an
annual “Forecast” report on the state of EHS and the Future of Work

• A suite of impact mapping and valuation guides for a wide array of EHS programs and initiatives, assisting
organizations in expressing the true value of their EHS activities in the context of ESG and beyond

• A guided, interactive “journey assessment” to understand your organization’s current footing and recommended
future actions

• A series of deep and engaging workshops aimed at arming EHS and ESG practitioners with the knowledge and
tools they need to move the needle on these issues in their organizations

• Ongoing engagement with a growing group of EHS and ESG experts, with opportunities to get directly involved,
benchmark with peers and learn about new approaches in real time

We encourage all interested parties to reach out to us by contacting [email protected] for more information.

51

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Appendix 1: Methodology
Framework Assessment
Verdantix aims to use a methodical and consistent approach to determine the suitability of candidate Value of
Safety frameworks – where a framework is a structure underlying a system or concept, or a guide for implementing
or measuring a particular program.

This framework review seeks to answer the following questions:

- How is safety defined, measured and valued across existing frameworks and how does that differ from the
meaning of safety today?
- How can such safety frameworks be practically integrated into everyday decision-making?
- How has ESG impacted the value and valuation of qualifying safety frameworks?

Verdantix used a seven-step framework assessment methodology (see Figure 24),

which is as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Valuable/ Topic
Framework Value of
Framework Framework unique/ implementation Significance of
identification, framework in
definition topic emerging and safety to the
name and the project
validation applicability perspective measurement framework
description context
assessment coverage

Figure 24: Framework Assessment Methodology

STEP 1 – Framework name and description [Text]

n Organization/framework developer name
n Direct link to framework documentation
n Details on whether the framework is focused on ESG or EHS or both
n Whether mandatory/voluntary and industry specificity (high/medium/low-risk)
n Geographies where the framework is targeted

STEP 2 – Is it a framework (a structure underlying a system or concept, or a guide for implementing or
measuring a particular program)? [Yes/No]
n Needs to be a specific framework, not simply be a regulatory body or multi-purpose organization
n If no, exclude

STEP 3 – Does the framework mention any of the topics within the scope of the Value of Safety project? [Yes
No, list of coverage]
n Needs to be a framework related to or including at least one of the following:

• Reducing serious injuries, illnesses and fatalities; mental health; total worker health; psychological
safety; human and organizational performance; diversity, equity and inclusion; environmental
protections and sustainability; and social, ethical, political and reputational issues
n If the framework does not cover any of the above, exclude

STEP 4 –  Extent to which the framework provides a valuable and/or unique perspective with a plurality of metrics
or novel metrics on one or more of the above topics [High/Medium/Low, with text justification]
n Provides a measure of framework quality concerning the topics within the scope of the
Value of Safety project

52

< Back to Table of Contents >

 STEP 5 – Does the framework cover the above topic(s) in one or more of the following contexts?
n Implementation (how to deploy in a real-world workplace)
n Measurement (how to determine prevalence or success)

STEP 6 – How significantly is safety considered in this framework? [Majority of focus/One of key features/
Peripheral to focus/Not considered]
n T
 his step considers the relevance of the framework to the objectives of the project – recognizing a new
value of safety
n Where the definition of safety could be – a “condition or judgment of acceptable control over negative
consequences caused either deliberately or by accident” or a “physical state with relative freedom from
hazards, injuries or loss of personnel and property”

STEP 7 – Value of framework in providing guidance on New Value of Safety [High/Medium/Low]

n Determines whether the framework is included in the shortlist of 8-10 used for deeper exploration
in the NSC project

Using this methodology, Verdantix identified over 80 frameworks for initial review, 29 of these frameworks met the
long list criteria and 10 were selected for the shortlist as they met the more stringent criteria (see Figure 25).

Framework name Description Shortlist Rationale

CAN/ Provides information on psychological health and safety in the Detailed framework on stakeholders, implementation,
workplace as well as prevention, promotion and guidance to resources, infrastructure, event management and training.
CSA-Z1003-13 stage implementation.

Corporate Knights Scoring methodology providing quantifiable metrics for Covers variety of detailed metrics for social issues, equality,
publicly-listed firms with revenue greater than $1bn to assess diversity, injuries, fatalities and turnover. Scheme interacts
Sustainability their sustainability. Covers business metrics alongside social, with over 7,000 public companies with over $1bn revenue,
Rankings employee, wellbeing and DEI. including well-known firms Siemens, Schneider, HP and Cisco.
Global Reporting Initiative 403: Occupational Health and Safety. Detailed framework for identifying and reporting health and
GRI Provides detailed framework for identifying mental and physical safety issues as well as mental health in workplaces.
health issues in organizations.
International Network of Safety & Health Professional International forum of EHS professionals provides a strong
Organisation focuses on the EHS profession. INSHPO provides framework based on capability rather than competency
an international forum for engagement on EHS-related matters, in applying a model code of conduct, certifications and
INSHPO advancing the EHS profession through the exchange of education of workforce on EHS.
evidence-based practices and the development of a harmonized
framework.
ISO 26000:2010, Guidance on social responsibility. Guidance Detailed guidance framework on creating and managing
document constitutes a stepping stone for organizations in both a sustainable, socially and environmentally responsible
ISO 26001 the public and private sectors who want to implement ISO 26000 business including worker safety, development and
as a means of achieving the benefits of operating in a socially social dialogue.
responsible manner.
Provides EHS guidance on implementing an EHS management Detailed guidance framework on creating and managing
system, managing risks, etc. effective EHS, reducing workplace incidents, absenteeism,
ISO 45001: 2018 reducing insurance cost, health and safety culture, reputation
staff and morale.
Provides information on EHS management, psychological Detailed description of psychological safety, definitions,
ISO 45003: 2021 health and safety at work as well as guidelines for managing organizational responsibilities and implementation guidelines
psychosocial risks. with examples.
JUST Capital search advisory council captures the American Covers contemporary corporate ESG and EHS issues as
public’s views and measures corporate behavior on issues perceived by U.S. public and provides detailed measurements
most important to the American public with defined methods. methodology.
Just Capital Most important issues according to stakeholders in 2022
were: Workers (39%), Communities (20%), Shareholders and
Governance (19%), Customers (11%) and Environment (10%).

SASB O&G Sustainability Accounting Standards Board industry-specfic Highly credible standards body that has developed its
standards identify the subset of sustainability issues most industry-specific standards through a well-considered
Exploration and relevant to financial reporting. Developed based on feedback consultation program. The Oil & Gas standard has been
Production from companies, investors and market participants. selected due to its significant safety focus.
17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for countries Wide-ranging goals covering social, environmental,
UN Sustainable worldwide, developed and developing to end poverty and use infrastructure, equality, worker and community health with
and Production strategies to improve health and education, reduce inequality and detailed implementation frameworks and success stories.
Goals spur economic growth - all while tackling climate change and
working to preserve oceans and forests.
Figure 25: Framework Assessment Shortlist Rationale 53

< Back to Table of Contents >

Quantitative Survey
Verdantix executed a quantitative survey to gain insight into how safety is being reinterpreted and expanded as a
result of emerging trends.

The focus of the survey aligned with the key research questions for the New Value of Safety project:
• What is understood by the meaning of safety today?
• Why is safety important and valuable to stakeholders across industries and geographies?
• How can current values around safety be practically integrated into everyday decision-making?
• How do existing safety measurement frameworks differ from the meaning of safety today?
The key emerging trends covered in the survey include:
• ESG and sustainability
• Mental health and wellbeing
• Psychological safety
• Human and organizational performance
• Environment, sustainability and climate-related safety
• Diversity, equity and inclusion
• Ethics, politics and reputation
The 81 survey respondents represented a range of stakeholder groups and geographies
(see Figure 26 and Figure 27).

Interview participants by stakeholder group

Health and Safety Technology 28

and Services Professionals

ESG and Sustainability Professionals 14

NGOs, Academia and

Frameworks/Standards Bodies 12

Insurance and Investment 12

Government 8

Business Executives 7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Notes: N=81.

Figure 26: Interview Participants by Stakeholder Group

54

< Back to Table of Contents >

 Interview participants by geography

North America 34

Asia 13

Africa and Gulf States 12

Europe 12

LATAM 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Notes: N=81.

Figure 27: Interview Participants by Geography

Qualitative Survey
Verdantix executed a range of qualitative interviews to gain detailed insights into how safety is being reinterpreted
and expanded as a result of emerging trends. A total of 10 qualitative interviews were conducted across stakeholder
groups with representatives (see Figure 28). We surveyed contacts from North America and the United Kingdom
leveraging the Verdantix research network and the NSC EHS/ESG expert working group. The qualitative survey was
focused on the same emerging trends and research questions as the quantitative survey to better facilitate analysis.

Stakeholder Group Number of Participants

ESG and Sustainability Professionals 3

Business Executives 2

Insurance and Investment Professionals 3

Government Administrators 1

Health and Safety Technology and Service Professionals 1

Figure 28: Qualitative Interview Participants by Stakeholder Group

55

< Back to Table of Contents >

Appendix 2: Glossary
Business ethics – a form of applied ethics that attempts to apply moral norms and values to business procedures
and institutions. [Reference: Tayşir and Pazarcık]

Connected safety solutions – a collection of IoT devices that both provide safety alerts in the field and relay
information to a software application in real-time. [Reference: Verdantix]

Climate change adaptation – adjustments in ecological, social or economic systems in response to actual or
expected climatic stimuli and their effects. It refers to changes in processes, practices and structures to moderate
potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change. [Reference: the UN]

Climate change mitigation – efforts to reduce or prevent the emission of greenhouse gases. [Reference: the UN]

Corporate social responsibility – a management concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and interactions with their stakeholders. [Reference: the UN Industrial
Development Organization]

Diversity – the characteristics of differences and similarities between people. [ISO, 2021]

Employee — an individual who is in an employment relationship with an organization, according to national law or
its application. [Reference: GRI 403]

Employee engagement — the degree to which employees invest their cognitive, emotional and behavioral energies
toward positive organizational outcomes.

Environment — natural surroundings in which an organization operates, including air, water, land, natural resources,
flora, fauna, people, outer space and their interrelationships. [Reference: ISO 26000]

Equity – the principle that people should be subject to policies, processes and practices that are fair, as far as
possible, and free from bias. [Reference: ISO, 2021]

Environmental, social and governance – issues that are identified or assessed in responsible investment
processes. Environmental factors are issues relating to the quality and functioning of the natural environment and
natural systems. Social factors are issues relating to the rights, wellbeing and interests of people and communities.
Governance factors are issues relating to the governance of companies and other investee entities. [Reference: UN
Principles for Responsible Investment]

Ethics – a guiding principle which implies moral conduct and honorable behavior, showing consideration to the
rights and interests of others. [Reference: Verma, S. and Prakash U.M]

Fatigue — the feelings of tiredness, reduced energy and increased effort needed to perform tasks. [Reference: NSC]

Gender equality — equitable treatment for women and men. [Reference: ISO 26000]

Governance – all processes of governing, the institutions, processes and practices through which issues of
common concern are decided upon and regulated. Good governance adds a normative or evaluative attribute to the
process of governing. [Reference: United Nations Human Rights Office]

Health — a state of complete physical, social and mental wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity. [Reference: World Health Organization]

Hazard risk assessment – the process of evaluating the uncertainty and likelihood of a process or event negatively
affecting a worker’s wellbeing. [Reference: ISO 45001]

56

< Back to Table of Contents >

Human and organizational performance – an operating philosophy that recognizes error as part of the human
condition and an organization’s processes and systems greatly influence employees’ decisions, choices and actions,
and consequently, their likelihood of successful work performance. [Reference: NSC]

Impact — the effect an organization has on the economy, the environment and/or society, which in turn can indicate
its contribution (positive or negative) to sustainable development. [Reference: GRI 403]

Inclusion – the process of including all stakeholders in organizational contexts. [ISO, 2021]

Materiality – the principle that corporate leaders utilize to understand which environment, social and governance
(ESG) issues to prioritize in their organization. The definition of what is material can include various risk factors,
opportunities, dependencies and/or issues that have the potential to affect the cash flow and financial value
creation of a company. [References: US Securities & Exchange Commission, International Sustainable Standards
Board, Datamaran]

Mental health — a state of mental wellbeing that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their
abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community. [Reference: World Health Organization]

Natural capital –the stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (e.g., plants, animals, air, water, soils,
minerals) that combine to yield a flow of benefits to people. [Reference: Capitals Coalition]

Near miss – incidents that could have resulted in injury or property damage, even though they did not.
[Reference: NSC]

Occupational health and safety management system — set of interrelated or interacting elements to establish an
occupational health and safety policy and objectives, and to achieve those objectives. [Reference: GRI 403]

Occupational health and safety risk — a combination of the likelihood of occurrence of a work-related hazardous
situation or exposure, and the severity of injury or ill health that can be caused by the situation or exposure.
[Reference: GRI 403]

Organization — a company, employer, operation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution or association,

or a part or combination thereof, that has its own management. [Reference: CAN/CSA-Z1000]

Organizational culture — a pattern of basic assumptions invented, discovered or developed by a given group that
are a mix of values, beliefs, meanings and expectations that group members hold in common and use as behavioral
and problem-solving cues. [Reference: CAN/CSA-Z1000]

Organizational resilience — the ability of an organization to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and adapt to
incremental change and sudden disruptions in order to survive and prosper.
[Reference: British Standards Institution]

Personal protective equipment — equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace
injuries and illnesses. [Reference: OSHA]

Pollution prevention – any practice that reduces, eliminates or prevents pollution at its source before it is created.
[Reference: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]

Psychological safety — the absence of harm and/or threat of harm to mental wellbeing that a worker might
experience. [Reference: CAN/CSA-Z1000]

Psychologically healthy and safe workplace — a workplace that promotes workers’ psychological wellbeing and
actively works to prevent harm to workers’ psychological health including in negligent, reckless or intentional ways.
[Reference: CAN/CSA-Z1000]

57

< Back to Table of Contents >

Psychosocial risk factor — hazards including elements of the work environment, management practices and/or
organizational dimensions that increase the risk to health. [Reference: CAN/CSA-Z1000]

Risk — an estimate of the probability of a hazard-related incident or exposure occurring and the severity of harm or
damage that can result. [Reference: NSC]

Risk mitigation — avoiding, eliminating or reducing the probability of a hazard-related incident or exposure from
occurring. The minimization of the severity of harm or damage, if an incident or exposure occurs. [Reference: NSC]

Safety — state for which risks are judged to be acceptable. [Reference: NSC]

Safety champion – organizational leaders who demonstrate a personal commitment to worker safety health, both
on and off the job. [Reference: NSC]

Stress — the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed on them.
[Reference: HSE]

Social license – the perceptions of local stakeholders that an organization operating in a given area or region is
socially acceptable or legitimate. [Reference: Springer]

Sustainability – the ability for a company to sustainably maintain resources and relationships with and manage
its dependencies and impacts within its whole business ecosystem over the short, medium and long term.
Sustainability is a condition for a company to access over time the resources and relationships needed (such as
financial, human and natural), ensuring their proper preservation, development and regeneration, to achieve its
goals. [Reference: IFRS]

Transparency – openness about decisions and activities that affect society, the economy and the environment, and
a willingness to communicate these in a clear, accurate, timely, honest and complete manner.
[Reference: ISO 26000]

Total worker health — policies, programs and practices that integrate protection from work-related safety and
health hazards with the promotion of injury and illness prevention efforts to advance worker wellbeing.
[Reference: NIOSH]

Wellbeing at work — fulfillment of the physical, mental, social and cognitive needs and expectations of a worker
related to their work. [Reference: ISO 45003]

Workers’ compensation – insurance providing partial medical care and income protection to employees who are
injured or become ill from their job. [Reference: CDC/NIOSH]

Work-related hazard — source or situation with the potential to cause injury or ill health. [Reference: GRI 403]

Work-related incident — occurrence arising out of or in the course of work that could or does result in injury or ill
health. [Reference: GRI 403]

Work-related injury or ill health — negative impacts on health arising from exposure to hazards at work.
[Reference: GRI 403]

Workplace — an area or location where a worker works for an organization or is required or permitted to be present
while engaging in service (including social events) on behalf of an organization. [Reference: CAN/CSA-Z1000]

58

< Back to Table of Contents >

Appendix 3: References
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). (2022). AIHA Total Exposure Health aspects of Total Worker
Health: Advancing Worker Wellbeing. Available at: https://aiha-assets.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/AIHA/
resources/Guidance-Documents/AIHA-Total-Exposure-Health-aspects-of-Total-Worker-Health-Advancing-Worker-
Well-Being-Guidance-Document.pdf (Accessed 26th May 2023).

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). (2023). Human Capital and Environmental, Social and Governance
(ESG). Pre-release copy, availability forthcoming on AIHA website. (Accessed 26th May 2023).

Avetta and the National Safety Council (NSC). (2022) Benchmarking Organizational Commitment to ESG. Available
at: https://www.avetta.com/en-gb/node/7466 ([Accessed 12th September 2022).]

CAN/CSA-Z1003-13/BNQ 9700-803/2013 - Psychological health and safety in the workplace (2013) BCFED Health &
Safety Centre. Available at: https://www.healthandsafetybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CAN_CSA-Z1003-13_
BNQ_9700-803_2013_EN.pdf (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

Capitals Coalition (2023). Available at: https://capitalscoalition.org/ (Accessed: April 4, 2023).

Conceptual framework (2022) SASB. Available at: https://www.sasb.org/standards/conceptual-framework/

(Accessed: April 3, 2023).

Corporate Knights Sustainability Rankings (2021) Corporate Knights. Available at: https://www.corporateknights.
com/resources/ (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

Equality act 2010: Guidance (2010) GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-

guidance#:~:text=The%20Equality%20Act%202010%20legally,strengthening%20protection%20in%20some%20
situations. (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

EU Finalizes ESG Reporting Rules with International Impacts (2023). Meynier, et. al. Available at: https://corpgov.law.
harvard.edu/2023/01/30/eu-finalizes-esg-reporting-rules-with-international-impacts/ (Accessed: July 26, 2023).

GRI 403: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY 2018 (2018) Gri - topic standard for Occupational Health and
Safety. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/topic-standard-for-
occupational-health-and-safety/ (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

International Network of Safety & Health Professional Organisations (2017) inshpo. Available at: https://www.
inshpo.org/work (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

ISO 26000:2010 (2021) ISO. Available at: https://iso26000.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ISO-26000_2010_E_

OBPpages.pdf (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

ISO 45003:2021 (2021) ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:45003:ed-1:v1:en

(Accessed: April 3, 2023).

Just Capital Full ranking methodology (2022) JUST Capital. Available at: https://justcapital.com/full-ranking-
methodology/ (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2016). Fundamentals of total worker health approaches:
essential elements for advancing worker safety, health, and well-being. Publication No. 2017-112.

59

< Back to Table of Contents >

National Safety Council (2021) Human & Organizational Performance – A path to improvement for all organizations.
Available at: https://www.nsc.org/getmedia/6dc7b76d-09a2-4ad5-9be2-0b0365c34b46/nsm-wk4-mi (Accessed: 31
March 2023)

SDG indicators (2022) United Nations. United Nations. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/
(Accessed: April 3, 2023).

Tayşir, E. A. and Pazarcık, Y (2013). ‘Business Ethics, Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Does the
Strategic Management Field Really Care about these Concepts?’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99,
pp.294-303.The International Financial Reporting Standards (2022) ISSB describes the concept of sustainability
and its articulation with financial value creation, and announces plans to advance work on natural ecosystems and
just transition. Available at: https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2022/12/issb-describes-the-concept-of-
sustainability/ (Accessed: 31 March 2023)

The International Organization for Standardization (2010) ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility.
Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/42546.html (Accessed: 31 March 2023)

The International Organization for Standardization (2021) ISO 30415:2021 Human resource management –
Diversity and inclusion. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/71164.html (Accessed: 31 March 2023).

United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. (2023) Reporting Framework glossary. Available at: https://
www.unpri.org/reporting-and-assessment/reporting-framework-glossary/6937.article (Accessed: 3 April 2023).

United Nations Human Rights Office. About good governance. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/good-
governance/about-good-governance (Accessed: 3 April 2023).

Verma, S. and Prakash, U. M. (2011) Corporate Governance: Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802333 (Accessed: 3 April 2023).

World Health Organization (2022) Mental health. Available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/

mental-health-strengthening-our-response (Accessed: 31 March 2023)

Yang, M. et al. (2022) Value of Safety. Available at: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:cd62c5ed-719a-

466a-97d1-56476b121ef9?collection=research [Accessed 8th September 2022]

Your guide to implementing ISO 45001 (2018) NQA. Available at: https://www.nqa.com/en-gb/certification/
standards/iso-45001/implementation (Accessed: April 3, 2023).

60

< Back to Table of Contents >

Acknowledgements
The National Safety Council would like to gratefully acknowledge the individuals who served on an expert group
dedicated to shaping, informing and improving this report:

Paul Aasen | Minnesota Safety Council

Michael Anderson | Inclusive Capitalism
Ken Broadstreet | Mosaic
Sabine Burns | Mosaic
Carol Cala | Lockheed Martin
Tamara Coppens | Dow
Genya Dana | World Economic Forum
Heather Daniels | Lockheed Martin
John Fischer | Duke Energy Corporation
Michelle Garner-Janna | Cummins
Clifton Gibson | Constellation
Evan Harvey | Nasdaq
Paul Hendry | Jacobs
Kristin Herman | L’Oreal
Donavan Hornsby | Benchmark Gensuite
John Howard | National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
Sittichoke Huckentod | Nike
Zelia Kranich | Perrigo Company
Katie Martin | Avetta
Neil McFarlane | Firmenich
Blake McGowan | Velocity EHS
Tom McKenna | Capitals Coalition
Doug McNair | ERM
Dr. David Daniels | ID2 Solutions, LLC
Natalie Nicholles | Capitals Coalition
John Oxtoby | Ariel Investments
James Pomeroy | Thorton UK LLP
Charles Redinger | Redinger Group
Carl Sall | COS Solutions LLC
Kathy Seabrook | Global Solutions Inc
Aamer Shamin | AES
Yvonne Slate | Lockheed Martin
Larry Sloan | American Industrial Hygiene Association
Robert Somers | Perrigo Company
Joe Stablein | ERM
Malc Staves | L’Oreal
Peter Sturm | Sturm Consulting
Mike Wallace | Persefoni

61

< Back to Table of Contents >