Exploring the state of health and safety management system performance measurement in mining organizations
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Exploring the state of health and safety management system performance measurement in mining organizations

Filetype[PDF-601.05 KB]

  • English

  • Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      Saf Sci
    • Description:
      Complex arguments continue to be articulated regarding the theoretical foundation of health and safety management system (HSMS) performance measurement. The culmination of these efforts has begun to enhance a collective understanding. Despite this enhanced theoretical understanding, however, there are still continuing debates and little consensus. The goal of the current research effort was to empirically explore common methods to HSMS performance measurement in mining organizations. The purpose was to determine if value and insight could be added into the ongoing approaches of the best ways to engage in health and safety performance measurement. Nine site-level health and safety management professionals were provided with 133 practices corresponding to 20 HSMS elements, each fitting into the plan, do, check, act phases common to most HSMS. Participants were asked to supply detailed information as to how they (1) assess the performance of each practice in their organization, or (2) would assess each practice if it were an identified strategic imperative. Qualitative content analysis indicated that the approximately 1200 responses provided could be described and categorized into |, |, and |. A discussion of how these categories relate to existing indicator frameworks is provided. The analysis also revealed divergence in two important measurement issues; (1) quantitative vs qualitative measurement and reporting; and (2) the primary use of objective or subjective metrics. In lieu of these findings we ultimately recommend a balanced measurement and reporting approach within the three metric categories and conclude with suggestions for future research.
    • Pubmed ID:
    • Pubmed Central ID:
    • Document Type:
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov