Leading indicators that actually predict safety culture

TRIR, LTIR, and DART are lagging indicators — they measure harm that has already occurred. Leading indicators measure the inputs and activities that prevent harm: near-miss reports, inspection completion rates, training compliance, safety observation frequency, and toolbox talk attendance. The research is clear — organisations with high near-miss reporting rates have lower serious injury and fatality (SIF) rates, because they surface hazards before they cause harm.

The challenge is choosing leading indicators that are predictive, not performative. A high number of safety observations is meaningless if every observation says "all safe." A high training completion rate hides the fact that the training was a 10-minute video nobody watched. The best leading indicators are specific, behavioural, and tied to a known risk: percentage of hot-work permits with gas-test records attached, percentage of Lockout-Tagout (LOTO) procedures verified by a second competent person, percentage of incident investigations completed within 48 hours with a root cause identified.

A strong QEHS platform makes leading indicators visible in real time on program dashboards. When a supervisor can see that their site's near-miss reporting rate dropped 40% month-over-month, they can investigate whether the cause is genuinely safer operations or a chilling effect from management pressure. The data tells the story — if you collect it. For more on metrics, see the [glossary definitions of TRIR](/glossary/trir), [LTIR](/glossary/ltir), and [leading indicator](/glossary/leading-indicator). For implementing BBS programs, see the [behaviour-based safety guide](/guides/behaviour-based-safety-implementation-guide).