Health Leading Performance Indicators 2016data

REPORT MAY
2016h 2017
DATA SERIES
Health leading performance

indicators – 2016 data
Acknowledgements
IOGP acknowledges the participation of the companies that have
submitted health performance indicators. This report was produced by
the IOGP–IPIECA Health Committee.
Photography used with permission courtesy of ©psphotograph/

iStockphoto (Back cover)
Feedback
IOGP welcomes feedback on our reports: publications@iogp.org
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information
contained in this publication, neither IOGP nor any of its Members past present or
future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume
liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is
hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis
that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer.
The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.
This publication is made available for information purposes and solely for the private
use of the user. IOGP will not directly or indirectly endorse, approve or accredit the
content of any course, event or otherwise where this publication will be reproduced.
Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are © International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.
Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that
the copyright of IOGP and (ii) the sources are acknowledged. All other rights are
reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance

with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively
subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
REPORT MAY
2016h 2017
DATA SERIES
Health leading performance

indicators – 2016 data
Revision history
VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS
1.0 May 2017 First release

Health leading performance indicators – 2016 data 4
Preface
The health leading performance indicators

In 2007, the joint Health Committee of the International Association of Oil & Gas
Producers (IOGP) and IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for
environmental and social issues, published IOGP Report 393, Health Performance
Indicators – A guide for the oil and gas industry.
Content from that report was used to develop two tools that can be used
• to assess health leading performance indicators within individual companies,
and
• t o compare performance between different parts of a company and between
participating companies.
Both tools were used in 2016 to gauge health performance between participating
IOGP and IPIECA member companies; the results are published in this report.
The scope of the health performance indicators reporting differs from that used for
the safety, process safety and environmental performance reporting in that data
are included for both upstream and downstream activities.
There are no major changes to this report compared with Report 2015h, Health
Performance Indicators – 2015 data.
Data series
This report is published as part of the IOGP data series. IOGP produces annual
reports of safety, process safety and environmental performance indicators.
These are available from the IOGP website at http://www.iogp.org/bookstore.
5
Contents
Preface 4
Contributing IOGP and IPIECA member companies 6
Scope 7
Introduction 8
Percentage tool results 9
Gap analysis tool results 15
Gap analysis tool – each element in detail 22

Gap analysis tool: Element 1 – Health risk assessment and planning 22
Gap analysis tool: Element 2 – Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures 25
Gap analysis tool: Element 3 – Medical emergency management 28
Gap analysis tool: Element 4 – Management of ill-health in the workplace 31
Gap analysis tool: Element 5 – Fitness for task assessment and health surveillance 34
Gap analysis tool: Element 6 – Health impact assessment 37
Gap analysis tool: Element 7 – Health reporting and record management 40
Gap analysis tool: Element 8 – Public health interface and promotion of good health 43
Appendix A: Percentage tool example 46
Appendix B: Health management system gap analysis tool example 47
Appendix C: The eight elements of the health management system

that are measured 48
Contributing IOGP and IPIECA

member companies
The health leading performance indicators were derived from results provided by
the following companies:
ADNOC NOBLE ENERGY

BAKER HUGHES OMV
BHP BILLITON PEMEX
BP PETROBRAS
CHEVRON PETRONAS
CNOOC PTTEP
CONOCOPHILLIPS RASGAS
DONG O&G REPSOL
ENI SAIPEM
EXXONMOBIL SCHLUMBERGER
GEOPARK SHELL COMPANIES
HESS CORPORATION TOTAL
KUWAIT OIL COMPANY WINTERSHALL
Overview 7
Scope
The Health Committee is run jointly between IPIECA, the global oil and gas
industry association for environmental and social issues, and IOGP, the
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.
The IOGP membership includes companies operating in the upstream oil and
gas industry whereas the IPIECA membership includes companies operating
both upstream and downstream. Therefore the scope of the health performance
indicators data presented in this report is different to the scope of data presented
in other reports within the IOGP data series.
The health performance indicators are leading indicators. The process involves
a self-assessment of the company’s performance in relation to standardized
statements about the level of implementation of the company’s own health
management systems. The participating companies perform this self-assessment
on the scope of their operational activities therefore there is no separation
between upstream and downstream operations.
The scope of the health performance indicators reporting also includes

data provided by associate member contracting companies that have chosen
to participate.
In 2013, the invitation to participate in this analysis was extended to both IOGP
and IPIECA member companies and organizations. We are therefore seeing a
large increase in the number of companies taking part from 2013 data onwards
compared with previous years.
The reporting of all leading or lagging company data is voluntary.
For comparison, Report 2016s, Safety performance indicators – 2016 data,

Report 2016p, Safety performance indicators – Process safety events – 2016
data, and Report 2016e, Environmental performance indicators – 2016 data,
contain data relating to lagging indicators. In these reports, data are reported
by the participating oil and gas operating companies, inclusive of their contracted
employees and activities related only to their upstream operations. Contractor
companies, even though they may be associate members, do not report data
directly to IOGP. This is a deliberate approach that has been taken to avoid
duplication of reporting.
Introduction
In 2008, the IOGP–IPIECA Health Committee published IOGP Report 393, Health
Performance Indicators. A guide for the oil and gas industry.
The principles described in Report 393 were used to develop two tools (gap analysis
tool and percentage tool) that could be used to:
• assess health performance within individual companies; and
• c ompare performance between different parts of a company and between
participating companies.
These are all leading performance indicators.
The results of the data gathered using the health performance indicator tools
for the years 2008–2016 have previously been published as IOGP Reports 2011h,
2012h, 2013h, 2014h and 2015h.
This report presents the data reported by participating companies for 2016. The
data represent 26 companies, all of which provided data for both tools.
• 17 of the companies also participated in 2015.
• Three of the companies are reporting for the first time.
• Six companies that participated in 2015 did not participate in 2016.
In addition to the 2016 data submission, the 2015 data submission is presented for
the gap analysis tool by statement score, as a comparison to the 2016 data.
Percentage tool results for the years 2011 to 2015 are shown to allow comparison
with 2016 results.
• In 2015, 29 companies took part and all submitted data for each analysis.
• In 2012, 16 companies took part and submitted data for the gap analysis and
15 companies submitted data for the percentage tool analysis.
• In 2011, 18 companies took part and 17 of these companies submitted data
for each analysis.
Each company is assigned a code letter that changes each year to maintain
confidentiality. This code is not in any way related to the company name.
When responses are taken together, they provide a good indication of performance
as a whole since differences between the way companies have interpreted and
used the tools are likely to even out.
Examples from the percentage tool and the gap analysis tool are given in
Appendices A and B.
The eight elements of the health management system are described in Appendix C.
Percentage tool results
The percentage tool measures the extent of a company’s management of the eight
elements of their health management system across their business. The results can
be used to compare performance between different parts of a company and between
companies and the annual mean values of the participating companies.
Percentages are calculated as the result of a self-assessment performed by each

company to gauge the extent of their compliance with the requirements of each
element. The percentage portion of the business that complies with each level
from 1 to 4 is entered into the tool. The total must add up to 100%:
• Level 1. Process under development.
• Level 2. Process in place but not fully implemented and embedded.
• Level 3. Process in place and implemented. System functioning. System
procedures documented and results being measured.
• Level 4. Process in place and implemented. System sustained and supported
by an on-going improvement process.
The results from the percentage tool are displayed as a radar chart representing levels
1 to 4 with the highest level of compliance displayed by the largest block of colour.
Individual companies can compare their own radar charts with the averages in
Figure 2, which represent the consolidated results from the 26 companies that
participated in the percentage tool data collection for the year 2016.
The results for the years 2011 to 2015 are shown in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Progress can be seen by overlapping the results for each year of the 2011–2016
reporting period, shown in Figure 8.
The results from the percentage tool show similar values for the years shown with
generally increasing scores in the elements year-on-year.
• The health impact assessment element has consistently scored lowest over
the five years of analysis although is showing signs of increasing in 2016.
• Medical emergency management and management of ill-health in the
workplace have both scored the highest in the past five years.
• Health reporting and record management, critical to the provision of robust
data, has been in the top 3 for the past four years.
Both tools show that participating oil and gas company management of medical
ill-health and emergencies scored the highest result and health impact
assessment scored the lowest.
Despite the variation in participating companies across the five years, average
values for each health area are quite consistent. No element score has decreased
from 2015 to 2016.
35
29 29
Number of participating companies
30
26 26
25
(percentage tool)
20 17
15
15
10
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1: Number of participating companies 2011–2016 (percentage tool)
Table 1: Percentage tool mean analysis 2011–2016
Element 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Health risk assessment and planning 3.09 3.19 3.00 3.21 3.36 3.43
Industrial hygiene and control of 3.25 3.20 3.14 3.38 3.26 3.46
workplace exposures
Medical emergency management 3.71 3.63 3.47 3.74 3.70 3.68
Management of ill-health in the workplace 3.57 3.49 3.49 3.64 3.70 3.74
Fitness for task assessment and health 3.46 3.41 3.26 3.36 3.39 3.37
surveillance
Health impact assessment 2.44 2.60 2.39 2.70 2.74 2.84
Health reporting and record management 3.35 3.48 3.38 3.49 3.52 3.56
Public health interface and promotion of 2.97 2.81 2.88 3.09 3.31 3.39
good health
Health risk assessment

and planning
(3.43)
Public health interface and 4 Industrial hygiene and control
promotion of good health of workplace exposures
(3.39) 3 (3.46)
1
Health reporting and Medical emergency
record management management
(3.56) (3.68)
Management of ill-health
Health impact assessment
in the workplace
(2.84)
(3.74)
Fitness for task assessment
and health surveillance
(3.37)
Figure 2: Percentage tool – 2016 HPI average values (26 companies took part)

and planning
(3.36)
(3.31) 3 (3.26)
1
(3.52) (3.70)
in the workplace
(2.74)
(3.70)
(3.39)

and planning
(3.21)
(3.09) 3 (3.38)
1
(3.49) (3.74)
in the workplace
(2.70)
(3.64)
(3.36)

and planning
(3.00)
(2.88) 3 (3.14)
1
(3.38) (3.47)
in the workplace
(2.39)
(3.49)
(3.26)

and planning
(3.19)
(2.81) 3 (3.20)
2
1
(3.48) (3.63)
in the workplace
(2.60)
(3.49)
(3.41)

and planning
(3.09)
(2.97) 3 (3.25)
2
1
(3.35) (3.71)
in the workplace
(2.44)
(3.57)
(3.46)
2016 2014 2012

Health risk assessment 2015 2013 2011
and planning
4
Public health interface and Industrial hygiene and control
promotion of good health 3 of workplace exposures
2
1
in the workplace

Figure 8: Percentage tool mean analysis 2011–2016

Gap analysis tool results
The gap analysis tool allows for in-depth analysis at site and corporate level.
The same eight health management system elements are used but in this tool
each element is further broken down into component statements relating to
activities that may be performed by different professionals or may not apply to a
particular site or company.
The statements are rated as levels 1–4 (as they are in the percentage tool) with an
additional level 5 for ‘not applicable’.
Where a company has allocated a score of 5, indicating that the issue is not applicable,
this score is not included in the average values.
Figure 9 shows the number of companies participating in each year.
• 26 companies took part in 2016
• 29 companies took part in 2015
• 26 companies took part in 2014.
The results for each element can be viewed as a radar chart with the individual
statements around the circumference and this enables performance gaps to be
visualized, Figure 10. All eight elements can be viewed as a heat chart to identify
areas for improvement. As with the percentage tool, results can be overlapped to
show overall progress (based on the data provided by the respondents).
All 77 statements and grouped results are presented in Tables 3–22 for data
submitted for 2015 and 2016.
Combined company results from 2016 and 2015 are shown and these can be viewed
by company (Tables 3 and 4). This enables individual companies not only to use their
results to identify potential gaps in their own health management systems and set
targets for improvement but also to indicate how they compare with their peers.
The results from the gap analysis tool show similar values for the years shown:
• H
ealth impact assessment has consistently scored lowest over the five years
of analysis and some signs of decline have shown since 2015.
• Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures scores have increased
from 2015 to 2016.
• M
edical emergency management and management of ill-health in the
workplace have both scored highest in the past five years.
• H
ealth reporting and record management, critical to the provision of robust
data, has been in the top 3 for the past five years.
It can be seen from both tools that participating oil and gas company management
of medical ill-health and emergencies scored the highest and health impact
assessment scored the lowest.
Despite the variation in participating companies across the five years, average
values for each health area are quite consistent, all element scores have increased
from 2015 to 2016.
35
29 29
Number of participating companies
30
26 26
25
(gap analysis tool)
20 17 16
15
10
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 9: Participating companies 2011–2016 (gap analysis tool)
Table 2: Gap analysis tool mean analysis 2011–2016
Element 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Health risk assessment and planning 2.97 3.07 3.09 3.28 3.20 3.35
Industrial hygiene and control of 3.28 3.28 3.32 3.50 3.38 3.59
workplace exposures
Medical emergency management 3.61 3.57 3.59 3.73 3.75 3.79
Management of ill-health in the workplace 3.64 3.50 3.69 3.78 3.76 3.87
Fitness for task assessment and health 3.44 3.40 3.41 3.39 3.40 3.54
surveillance
Health impact assessment 2.56 2.44 2.56 2.86 2.76 2.92
Health reporting and record management 3.36 3.50 3.56 3.67 3.54 3.65
Public health interface and promotion of 3.01 2.92 2.92 3.19 3.25 3.40
good health
2016 2014 2012

2015 2013 2011
and planning
4
Public health interface and Industrial hygiene and control
promotion of good health 3 of workplace exposures
2
1
in the workplace

Figure 10: Gap analysis tool mean analysis 2011–2016

Table 3: Gap analysis tool 2016 results by company
Company Results by element Average by

Code company
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Health risk Industrial Medical Management Fitness Health impact Health Public health
assessment hygiene and emergency of ill-health in for task assessment reporting interface and
and planning control of management the workplace assessment and record promotion of
workplace and health management good health
exposures surveillance
DF 2.1 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.5 1.4 2.6 1.8 2.3

LK 2.1 2.1 2.8 4.0 2.4 1.0 2.7 2.2 2.4
RU 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.4
RN 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.3 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.2
XI 2.9 3.9 4.0 3.7 2.8 2.0 3.3 2.0 3.2
IY 3.2 3.1 2.9 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3
VQ 3.0 3.4 4.0 3.9 4.0 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.3
YC 3.5 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.4
GQ 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.0 3.5
WV 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.0 3.9 3.0 3.5
XX 3.4 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.4 2.3 3.9 3.6 3.5
MP 3.1 3.9 3.7 4.0 4.0 2.6 3.8 3.4 3.6
TJ 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.8 2.6 3.9 3.2 3.6
WK 3.1 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.9 3.2 3.7
KG 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.7
DB 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 3.7
KJ 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.8
MX 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.0 4.0 3.6 3.8
EJ 3.7 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.8
NJ 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.8
PH 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 3.9 3.6 3.9
AX 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9
GX 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.0 4.0 3.9
PO 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.9
QL 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.0 4.0 3.9
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.4 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 2.9 3.7 3.4 3.5
element
Sorted by average by company, lowest to highest (26 companies took part)

Note: assigned company codes change every year
Table 4: Gap analysis tool 2015 results by company

Code company
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Health risk Industrial Medical Management Fitness Health impact Health Public health
assessment hygiene and emergency of ill-health in for task assessment reporting interface and
and planning control of management the workplace assessment and record promotion of
workplace and health management good health
YU 2.1 1.9 2.5 2.9 2.9 1.1 2.9 2.2 2.4

SG 2.2 2.2 3.4 4.0 2.3 1.0 2.7 2.0 2.5
OS 2.3 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.3 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.5
RO 2.9 3.4 4.0 3.4 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.2 3.1
IB 2.6 3.1 3.5 3.7 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.2
LE 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.2
UU 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.3 2.3 3.1 2.0 3.2
EE 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.4 2.9 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.3
FI 3.0 3.4 4.0 3.9 4.0 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.3
QT 2.6 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.9 1.9 3.8 3.2 3.3
BH 2.9 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.1 3.9 3.6 3.4
JM 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.4 2.9 3.6 2.6 3.4
YV 2.9 3.2 4.0 3.3 3.5 2.9 3.6 4.0 3.4
XB 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.5 2.3 3.8 3.6 3.5
AR 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.0 3.5
BX 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.5
TB 3.0 3.4 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.6
TF 3.3 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6
KA 2.4 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.6 n/a 3.8 3.6 3.6
NX 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.6 2.9 3.8 3.2 3.6
PV 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.7
VL 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7
NU 3.7 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.7
FQ 3.3 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.9 4.0 3.7
OY 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.1 3.9 3.2 3.8
CP 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.4 3.8
RD 3.1 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.8
DG 3.7 3.9 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.8
VE 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.9 4.0 4.0 3.9
Average by
3.2 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.4 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.4
element
Sorted by average by company, lowest to highest (29 companies took part)

The results can also be viewed by element (Tables 5 and 6) to highlight the health
elements in which the participating companies appear to be performing well and
those where additional guidance and support would be useful.
Table 5: Gap analysis tool 2016 results by element

Code company
6. 1. 8. 5. 2. 7. 3. 4.
Health impact Health risk Public health Fitness Industrial Health Medical Management
assessment assessment interface and for task hygiene and reporting emergency of ill-health in
and planning promotion of assessment control of and record management the workplace
good health and health workplace management
surveillance exposures
DF 1.4 2.1 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.3

LK 1.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.8 4.0 2.4
RU 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.4
RN 3.0 3.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.2
XI 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.8 3.9 3.3 4.0 3.7 3.2
IY 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.4 2.9 4.0 3.3
VQ 2.5 3.0 3.4 4.0 3.4 2.9 4.0 3.9 3.3
YC 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.4
GQ 2.8 3.7 3.0 2.8 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.5
WV 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5
XX 2.3 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.5
MP 2.6 3.1 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.6
TJ 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.6
WK 3.0 3.1 3.2 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.6
KG 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.7
DB 3.0 3.4 3.2 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
KJ 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8
MX 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
EJ 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.8
NJ 3.6 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PH n/a 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9
AX 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9
GX 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PO 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9
QL 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
2.9 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.5
element
Sorted by element, lowest to highest (26 companies took part)

Table 6: Gap analysis tool 2015 results by element

Code company
6. 1. 8. 2. 5. 7. 3. 4.
Health impact Health risk Public health Industrial Fitness Health Medical Management
assessment assessment interface and hygiene and for task reporting emergency of ill-health in
and planning promotion of control of assessment and record management the workplace
good health workplace and health management
YU 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.4

SG 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.6 3.4 4.0 2.5
OS 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.5
RO 2.0 2.9 2.2 3.4 2.0 3.3 4.0 3.4 3.1
IB 3.0 2.6 3.2 3.1 2.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.2
LE 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.2
UU 2.3 3.4 2.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.9 3.7 3.2
EE 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.3
FI 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.4 4.0 2.9 4.0 3.9 3.3
QT 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.3
JM 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.4
BH 3.1 2.9 3.6 2.3 3.9 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.4
YV 2.9 2.9 4.0 3.2 3.5 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.4
XB 2.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.5
AR 2.8 3.7 3.0 3.7 2.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.5
BX 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.9 3.5
TB 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.5
TF 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.6
KA n/a 2.4 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.6
NX 2.9 3.5 3.2 3.8 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.6
PV 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.7
VL 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.7
NU 3.5 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.6 4.0 3.7
FQ 3.4 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.7
OY 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8
CP 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8
RD 3.6 3.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
DG 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.7 4.0 3.8
VE 2.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
Average by
2.7 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.4
element
Sorted by element, lowest to highest (29 companies took part)

Gap analysis tool – each element

in detail
A deeper analysis of the data for each element was undertaken.
The results are shown, in descending order of the average score per statement, for
the data submitted by participating companies in 2015 and 2016 (Tables 7–22).
Gap analysis tool: Element 1 – Health risk assessment

and planning (generally understood to relate to ‘within
the fence’ activities)
Workplace health hazards are identified, their risks assessed and a health plan
addressing any risks is implemented:
Statement A: for all current activities and operations.
Statement B: during the development stage of all new projects.
Statement C: prior to modifications to plant and equipment.
Statement D: prior to acquisition or divestiture of sites, leases, plant or other
processes or materials.
Statement E: to address changing public and environmental health conditions
or new scientific information.
Statement F: Internal targets are set for the workplace health plans.
Statement G: The workplace health plans are reviewed regularly and
progressed against the internally set targets.
Product health hazards are identified, their risks assessed and a product health
plan produced:
Statement H: for all current products.
Statement I: during the development stage of all new products.
Statement J: prior to acquisitions.
Statement K: to address changing public and environmental health conditions
or new scientific information.
Statement L: Internal targets are set for the product health plans.
Statement M: The product health plans are reviewed regularly and
progressed against the internally set targets.
Table 7: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 1 – Health risk assessment and planning
Company Results by statement score Average by

Code company
J C E L M I D K F B G H A
DF 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.1
LK 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.1
RU 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.1
XI 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 n/a 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.9
VQ 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
MP 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.1
WK 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.1
IY 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.2
RN 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.2
WV n/a 4.0 3.0 n/a n/a n/a 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.3
DB 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
TJ 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
XX 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
NJ 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
YC 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
PH n/a 3.0 3.0 n/a n/a n/a 3.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 3.6
MX n/a 3.0 3.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.0 n/a 4.0 n/a 4.0 3.6
KG 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
EJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
GQ 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
KJ n/a 4.0 4.0 n/a n/a n/a 3.0 n/a 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
AX 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
GX 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
QL 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.4
statement
Sorted by statement score, lowest to highest (26 companies took part)

Element 1 requires ‘Workplace health hazards are identified, their risks assessed
and a health plan addressing any risks is implemented’ in relation to Statements
A to E, as listed.
Statement J, ‘Product health hazards are identified, their risks assessed and a product
health plan produced prior to acquisitions’, scored lowest in both 2015 and 2016.
Statements A and D ‘Workplace health hazards are identified, their risks assessed
and a health plan addressing any risks is implemented for all current activities
and operations and prior to acquisition or divestiture of sites, leases, plant or other
processes or materials’ showed the largest score increases from 2015 to 2016.
With the exception of Statement I ‘Product health hazards are identified, their
risks assessed and a product health plan produced during the development stage
of all new products’, the scores in this element have either been maintained or
increased from 2015 to 2016.
Table 8: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 1 – Health risk assessment and planning

Code company
J D E C K L M B F G I A H
YU n/a 2.0 1.0 2.0 n/a n/a n/a 2.0 3.0 3.0 n/a 2.0 n/a 2.1
SG 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.2
OS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3
KA n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 n/a n/a n/a 2.0 4.0 3.0 n/a 2.0 n/a 2.4
IB n/a n/a 3.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.0 2.0 2.0 n/a 3.0 n/a 2.6
QT 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.6
RO 3.0 n/a 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.9
BH 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
YV 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.9
FI 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
TB 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
RD 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.1
LE 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.2
EE 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3
FQ 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
TF 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3
UU 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 n/a n/a 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
JM 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
XB 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
NX 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
BX 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
OY n/a n/a 3.0 3.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 n/a 3.6
VL 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 n/a n/a 3.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 3.6
PV 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
AR 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
CP 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
DG 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
NU 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
VE 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
Average by
2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.2
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 2 – Industrial hygiene and

control of workplace exposures
Statement A: The workplace environment meets legal requirements for

protection of human health.
Industrial hygiene and occupational health expertise is used to assess the

following and advise on the implementation of appropriate controls and work
practices to eliminate or minimize exposures for:
Statement B: all chemical health hazards.
Statement C: all physical health hazards.
Statement D: all biological health hazards.
Statement E: all ergonomic health hazards.
Statement F: all psychological health hazards.
Statement G: Workplace exposure monitoring is used to confirm ongoing

effectiveness of control measures.
Statement H: Material safety data sheets are in place and kept current.
Statement I: Employees are trained to understand the health risks,
preventive measures and emergency procedures associated
with their work.
Table 9: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 2 – Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures

Code company
F E G D B I C H A
LK 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.1
RU 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.3
DF 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.6
RN 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.1
YC 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.1
IY n/a 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.1
VQ 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
EJ 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
GQ 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
TJ 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
WV 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
XX 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
KG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8
KJ 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
MX 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
NJ 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8
WK 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
AX 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
DB 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
MP 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PH 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PO 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
XI 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
GX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.0 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.6
statement

Statement F, ‘Industrial hygiene and occupational health expertise is used to

assess the and advise on the implementation of appropriate controls and work
practices to eliminate or minimize exposures’ for ‘all psychological health
hazards’, scored lowest in both 2015 and 2016.
Statement A. ‘The workplace environment meets legal requirements for protection

of human health’ scored the highest in both 2015 and 2016.
The scores for every statement in this element increased from 2015 to 2016.
Table 10: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 2 – Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures

Code company
F E G D C I B H A
YU 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.9
SG 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.2
BH 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.3
OS 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
LE 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
EE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.1
IB 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.1
YV 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.2
QT 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.3
TF 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
CP 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.4
FI 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
RO 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
TB 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
JM 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
AR 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
NU 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
UU 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
VL 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
XB 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
BX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8
KA 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.8
NX 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
OY 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PV 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
RD 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8
DG 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
FQ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
VE 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
2.8 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.4
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 3 – Medical emergency

management
Statement A: Provision is made for the management of medical emergencies

associated with company operations and activities.
Statement B: There is a medical emergency plan based on competent
medical advice and level of risk, and it is in alignment with
existing local provisions.
Statement C: The medical emergency plan is integrated into other
emergency procedures.
Statement D: The medical emergency plan is communicated effectively.
Statement E: The medical emergency plan is practiced regularly with drills
and reviews as appropriate.
Statement F: A process is in place to ensure that lessons learned are acted
upon as a result of drills or incidents.
Statement G: Appropriate response times are established for first aid,
emergency medical care and evacuation.
Statement H: Adequate resources have been made available to meet
established response times for first aid, emergency medical
care and evacuation.
Statement I: All staff are provided with emergency contact numbers for
medical assistance on each work site.
Statement J: All staff are provided with emergency contact numbers for
medical assistance during travel.
Table 11: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 3 – Medical emergency management

Code company
G J D H E F B C A I
DF 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.4
RU 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6
LK 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.8
IY 1.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.9
RN 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
MP 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
WV 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
GQ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
EJ 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
KG 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PO 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
YC 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
AX 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
TJ 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
DB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
GX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
KJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
MX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
PH 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
WK 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
XI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
XX n/a 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8
statement

Many companies had high scores in this element.
Establishing ‘appropriate response times for first aid, emergency medical care and
evacuation’ (Statement G) would help the majority of lower scoring companies.
The score for Statement F, ‘A process is in place to ensure that lessons learned
are acted upon as a result of drills or incidents’ increased from 2015 to 2016.
Scores for statements D, H and J, ‘The medical emergency plan is communicated

effectively’, ‘Adequate resources have been made available to meet established
response times for first aid, emergency medical care and evacuation’ and ‘All
staff are provided with emergency contact numbers for medical assistance during
travel’, decreased from 2015 to 2016.
Table 12: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 3 – Medical emergency management

Code company
G F E B J H D C I A
OS 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
YU 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
SG 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
IB 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
LE 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
BH 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
BX 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
NU 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
XB n/a 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
DG 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.7
EE 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
KA 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
AR 3.0 n/a 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
FQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8
JM 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PV 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.8
CP n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
UU 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
FI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
OY 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QT 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
RD 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
RO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
TB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
TF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VE 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
YV 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.4 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.7
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 4 – Management of ill-health

in the workplace
Employees have access to occupational health practitioners who can:

Statement A: help mitigate the effects of ill-health on their ability to work
effectively.
Statement B: facilitate employee rehabilitation.
Statement C: facilitate return to work post-illness or post-injury.
A system is in place to provide access for employees to:

Statement D: primary medical care facilities.
Statement E: secondary medical care facilities.
Statement F: emergency medical care facilities.
Statement G: counselling and employee assistance where appropriate.
Table 13: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 4 – Management of ill-health in the workplace

Code company
G A B C E F D
DF 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

RU 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
RN 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
YC 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
WV 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
XI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.7
XX 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
GQ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
KG 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
VQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
AX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
DB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
EJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
GX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
IY 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
KJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
LK 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
MP 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
MX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
PH 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
PO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
TJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
WK 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9
statement

Statements D and F, ‘A system is in place to provide access for employees’ to

‘emergency medical care facilities’ and ‘primary medical care facilities’, scored
highest in both 2015 and 2016.
Statement G, ‘A system is in place to provide access for employees to receive

counselling and employee assistance where appropriate’ was the only statement
in this element to receive a lower score in 2016 than 2015.
All statements in this element scored highly.

Table 14: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 4 – Management of ill-health in the workplace

Code company
B C A G E F D
YU 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.9

OS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
YV 2.0 n/a 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
EE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
LE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
RO 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
JM 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
IB 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
UU 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
VL 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
AR 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
BX 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
CP 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
FI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PV 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
QT 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.9
TF 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
XB 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
BH 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
DG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
FQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
KA 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NU 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
OY 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
RD 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
SG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
TB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VE 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 5 – Fitness for task

assessment and health surveillance
Fitness for task

(to ensure employees’ health status is compatible with the work that they do)
Statement A: A check-list identifying fitness requirements by task is in place
covering each appropriate job category.
Health assessments (i.e. to match people with task) are performed by a

competent health practitioner who has knowledge of the work:
Statement B: prior to placing an employee in a task with fitness requirements.
Statement C: periodically as dictated by legal or company requirements.
Statement D: as part of change management.
Statement E: Wherever practicable, work is adapted so individuals are
included rather than excluded from work.
Health surveillance
(to ensure employees are working safely where their work is known to be
associated with the development of a recognized health problem for which
there is a valid method for testing)
Statement F: All activities that require health surveillance are defined.
Surveillance is conducted by a competent health practitioner and meets legal

requirements:
Statement G: prior to an employee starting the work (e.g. to establish a baseline).
Statement H: periodically as dictated by the nature of hazard.
Table 15: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 5 – Fitness for task assessment and health

Code company
D A B E C F H G
RU 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3

LK 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4
DF 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5
GQ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.8
RN 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
XI 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
IY n/a n/a n/a 3.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.0
YC 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
WV 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1
KJ 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
XX 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
TJ 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
EJ 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
KG 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
MX 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PO 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
AX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
DB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
GX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
MP 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
PH n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
WK 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.1 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.5
statement

Statement D, ‘Health assessments (i.e. to match people with task) are performed
by a competent health practitioner who has knowledge of the work as part of
change management’, scored the lowest for both 2015 and 2016.
All statements score in this element were either maintained or increased from
2015 to 2016.
Table 16: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 5 – Fitness for task assessment and health

Code company
D A B C E F H G
RO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

OS 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
SG 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3
IB 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6
AR 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.8
LE 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
EE 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.9
YU 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9
VL 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
UU n/a 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.3
JM 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.4
XB 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
YV 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
KA 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
NX 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
TF 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
FQ 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
NU 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
BH 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
BX 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
CP 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
OY 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PV 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
QT 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
TB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
DG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
FI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
RD 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VE 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.0 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 6 – Health impact assessment
Statement A: HIAs are initiated during the development stage of all new
projects and expansions.
Prior to the start of a new project, baseline data are established on the:
Statement B: demography (age distribution and key social characteristics).
Statement C: community health status (e.g. nutritional status, disease
prevalence, vulnerable groups).
Statement D: key environmental factors affecting human health including air,
soil and water quality.
Statement E: Health impact assessors are assigned to work with social and
environmental impact assessors in order to outline the range
and types of hazard and potential beneficial impacts from the
new project/expansion.
Statement F: External stakeholders are identified.
Statement G: Project staff communicate with external stakeholders (e.g.
local community) and consult with them on a regular basis.
Statement H: Relationships are developed with joint ventures, contractors
and local government to create a common, cost-effective
approach to health management.
Table 17: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 6 – Health impact assessment

Code company
C E H G B A F D
LK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

DF 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.4
RU 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
XI 1.0 n/a n/a n/a 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0
XX 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
VQ 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
MP 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.6
TJ 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.6
GQ 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8

DB 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
MX 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
RN 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0
WK 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
WV 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
IY n/a n/a n/a 2.0 4.0 n/a 3.0 4.0 3.3
GX 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
QL 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
YC 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
EJ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.6
KJ 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
NJ 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
AX 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.8
KG 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.9
statement

Statement C, ‘Prior to the start of a new project, baseline data are established on
community health status (e.g. nutritional status, disease prevalence, vulnerable
groups)’, shows the lowest score in 2015 and 2016.
Statements F, ‘External stakeholders are identified’ in Health Impact Assessments,

and D, ‘Prior to the start of a new project, baseline data are established on key
environmental factors affecting human health including air, soil and water quality’,
show the highest scores for the two years shown.
Element 6 remains the lowest scoring of the 8 Elements.

Table 18: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 6 – Health impact assessment

Code company
C B E G A H F D
SG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

YU 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1
OS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.9
QT 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.9
RO 1.0 1.0 n/a n/a 1.0 n/a 3.0 4.0 2.0
UU 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.3
XB 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
FI 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
AR 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
YV 3.0 3.0 n/a 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
JM 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
NX 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
VE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
BX 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
IB 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
LE 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0
PV 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
TB 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
BH 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.1
OY 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1
FQ 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.4
EE 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
NU 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5
RD 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
TF 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.6
VL 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
CP 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
DG 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.8
Average by
2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 7 – Health reporting and

record management
Statement A: Health information on all operations is accurate, secure and

readily available and meets legal requirements.
Statement B: Health information on all products is accurate, secure and
readily available and meets legal requirements.
Records are maintained on:

Statement C: raw materials and products (Material Safety Data Sheets – MSDS).
Statement D: work duties.
Statement E: health risk assessments.
Statement F: workplace monitoring results.
Statement G: personal exposure monitoring.
Statement H: fitness for task health assessments.
Statement I: health surveillance.
Statement J: Personal health records are retained confidentially in line with

any legal requirements on access and data protection.
Statement K: Health records are retained for a minimum of 40 years after an
individual leaves employment.
Significant health incidents (including occupational illness) and significant near

misses are:
Statement L: investigated.
Statement M: root causes determined.
Statement N: corrective actions identified.
Statement O: corrective actions tracked to completion.
Statement P: reported to appropriate authorities as required.
Statement Q: Health data is analysed routinely to identify any necessary

changes to operations or products.
Table 19: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 7 – Health reporting and record management

Code company
Q G O F D K E H A M B L N I C J P
DF 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.6
RU 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.6
LK 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.7
VQ 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.9
RN 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.1
XI 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
YC 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
IY 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 n/a n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
KG 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.6
EJ 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
GQ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
MP 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PH 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
KJ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
TJ 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
XX 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
PO 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
WK 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
WV 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
AX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
DB 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
GX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
MX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.1 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.7
statement

Most companies scored highly in health reporting and records management.
Statement Q, ‘Health data is analysed routinely to identify any necessary changes

to operations or products’, and Statement G, ‘Health information on all products is
accurate, secure and readily available and meets legal requirements for personal
exposure monitoring’, scores increased in 2016, although these remained the
lowest scoring statements in both 2015 and 2016.
Table 20: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 7 – Health reporting and record management

Code company
Q G F E D H I A B K M N O L C P J
SG 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.6
OS 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
YU 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 n/a 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.9
FI 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.9
UU 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.1
EE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.3
RO 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3
BX 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.4
IB 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
LE 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.4
TF 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
JM 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
YV n/a 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
PV 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.7
KA 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
NU 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
QT 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
XB 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
AR 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
NX 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
TB 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
BH 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
DG 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
VL 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
CP 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
FQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
OY 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
RD 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VE 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.5
statement

Gap analysis tool: Element 8 – Public health interface

and promotion of good health
Statement A: An effective interface between public health and occupational

health is maintained to mitigate major business risks and
identify key sources of epidemiological information.
Statement B: Communications are maintained with local governments and
health authorities to plan timely response to major outbreaks
of infectious diseases.
A programme is in place to:

Statement C: identify key employee health and wellness (e.g. smoking, obesity,
heart disease, high risk behaviour) issues.
Statement D: develop programmes to educate employees on prevention and
risk reduction (e.g. anti-smoking and fitness campaigns).
Statement E: Where appropriate extend these programmes beyond the
workforce to include the community (e.g. HIV, tuberculosis,
malaria and vaccination programmes).
Table 21: Gap analysis tool 2016 results for Element 8 – Public health interface and promotion of good health

Code company
E B A C D
DF 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.8

XI 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
LK 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.2
RU 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
GQ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
WV 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0
YC 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
DB 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.2
TJ 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.2
WK 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2
IY 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.4
KG 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.4
MP 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
RN 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.4
VQ 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
MX 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
PH 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
XX 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
KJ 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
PO 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
AX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
EJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
GX 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NJ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
QL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
UF 4.0 4.0 n/a 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4
statement

Statement E, ‘A programme is in place to, where appropriate, extend these

programmes beyond the workforce to include the community (e.g. HIV,
tuberculosis, malaria and vaccination programmes)’, remains the lowest scoring
statement in both 2015 and 2016.
No statement scores in this element decreased from 2015 to 2016.

Table 22: Gap analysis tool 2015 results for Element 8 – Public health interface and promotion of good health

Code company
E B A D C
SG 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

UU 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
RO 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.2
YU 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.2
JM 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6
OS 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8
AR 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
EE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
TB 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
BX 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2
IB 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2
LE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.2
NX 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.2
OY 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.2
QT 1.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.2
CP 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.4
FI 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4
BH 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
KA 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
PV 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
TF 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
XB 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
VL 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
DG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
FQ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
NU 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
RD 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
VE 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
YV 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Average by
3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.2
statement

Appendix A: Percentage tool

example
An example of one of the percentage tool elements. See p.9 for a description of the tool.
Appendix A 47
Appendix B: Health management

system gap analysis tool example
An example extract from the health management system gap analysis tool.
See p.15 for a description of the tool.
Input screen:
Output screen:
Appendix C: The eight elements of

the health management system
that are measured
The eight measured health management elements are
1. Health risk assessment and planning
2. Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures
3. Medical emergency management
4. Management of ill-health in the workplace
5. Fitness for task assessment and health surveillance
6. Health impact assessment
7. Health reporting and record management
8. Public health interface and promotion of good health.
Qualitative descriptions covering the key aspects of what needs to be done to

adequately manage each element follow. These are taken from IOGP Report 393,
Health Performance Indicators. A guide for the oil and gas industry.
Element 1 : Health risk assessment and planning

Health risk assessment is generally understood to relate to ‘within the fence’
activities. Workplace, product and environmental health hazards are identified,
their risks assessed and a health plan produced for all current activities,
operations and products. This takes place during the development stage of all new
projects and products, prior to modifications to plant or process, and before the
acquisition or divestiture of sites, leases, plant or other processes or materials,
to address changing public and environment health conditions. The health plan
addresses any risks identified, is reviewed regularly and is progressed against
internally set targets.
Element 2: Industrial hygiene and control of

workplace exposures
The workplace environment meets legal requirements and does not harm health.
Industrial hygiene and occupational health expertise is used to assess all chemical,
physical, biological, ergonomic and psychological health hazards and advise on
the implementation of appropriate controls and work practices to eliminate or
minimize exposures. Workplace exposure monitoring is used to confirm on-going
effectiveness of control measures. Material storage, labelling and safety data sheets
are kept current. Employees are trained to understand the health risks, preventive
measures and emergency procedures associated with their work. The workplace
maintains adequate records for auditing and demonstrating compliance.
Overview 49
Element 3 : Medical emergency management

Provision is made for the management of medical emergencies associated with
company operations and activities. There is a medical emergency plan based on
competent medical advice and level of risk, and it is in alignment with existing local
provisions. The plan is integrated into other emergency procedures, communicated
effectively, and practised regularly with drills and reviews as appropriate. A process
is in place to ensure that lessons learned are acted upon as a result of drills or
incidents. Appropriate response times are established for first aid, emergency
medical care and evacuation, and adequate resources have been made available
to meet these times. All staff are provided with emergency contact numbers for
medical assistance on each work site and during travel.
Element 4: Management of ill-health in the workplace

Employees have access to occupational health practitioners who can help mitigate
the effects of ill-health on their ability to work effectively, including facilitating
employee rehabilitation and return to work post-illness or post-injury. A system is
in place to provide access to primary, secondary and emergency medical facilities
as well as counselling and employee assistance where appropriate.
Element 5 : Fitness for task assessment and

health surveillance
Employees’ health status is compatible with the work that they do, and this
is confirmed by assessments when necessary. There is a task checklist for
different job categories, and health assessments/surveillance are performed
by a competent health practitioner who has knowledge of the work to be
performed. Pre-employment, pre-placement and periodic health assessments
are conducted as dictated by legal requirements and by the health risks
associated with specific tasks. Wherever possible, work is adapted so that
individuals are included rather than needlessly excluded from work. Health
surveillance is performed where required by legislation or where the work is
known to be associated with the development of a recognized health problem
for which there is a valid method for testing.
Element 6: Health impact assessment

Health impact assessment is generally understood to relate to ‘outside the fence’
activities. HIAs are initiated during the development stage of all new projects
and expansions. Baseline data are established on the demography, community
health status, air, soil and water quality prior to the start of a new project. Health
impact assessors are assigned to work with social and environmental impact
assessors in order to outline the range and types of hazard and potential beneficial
impacts from the new project/expansion. External stakeholders are defined, and
the product/project staff communicate and consult with them on a regular basis.
Partnerships are developed with joint ventures, contractors and local government
to create a common, cost-effective approach to health management.
Element 7: Health reporting and record management

Health information on all operations and products meets legal requirements and is
accurate, secure and readily available. Records are maintained on raw materials,
processes, products, work locations and work duties, as well as monitoring the
assessment activities such as health risk assessments, workplace and personal
exposure monitoring. Significant health incidents or trends are investigated.
Personal health records are retained for a minimum of 40 years after an individual
leaves employment. Categories and cases of occupational ill-health are tracked
and analysed on a regular basis, and form part of the routine presentation of
operating, business and financial metrics to facility management. In turn, these
data are aggregated to form part of the annual business planning process.
Element 8: Public health interface and promotion

of good health
An effective interface between public health and occupational health is maintained
to mitigate major business risks and identify key sources of epidemiological
information. Communications are maintained with local governments and health
authorities to plan timely response to major outbreaks of infectious diseases.
A programme is in place to identify key employee health issues and develop
programmes to educate around prevention/harm reduction. Where appropriate
these programmes extend beyond the workforce and into the community;
examples might include HIV, tuberculosis, smoking, obesity, heart disease, malaria
and vaccination programmes.
About IOGP
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) is
the voice of the global upstream industry. Oil and gas continue
to provide a significant proportion of the world’s energy to meet
growing demands for heat, light and transport.
Our Members produce more than a third of the world’s oil and
gas. They operate in all producing regions: the Americas, Africa,
Europe, the Middle East, the Caspian, Asia and Australia.
We serve industry regulators as a global partner for improving

safety, environmental and social performance. We also act as
a uniquely upstream forum in which our Members identify and
share knowledge and good practices to achieve improvements in
health, safety, the environment, security and social responsibility.
About IPIECA
IPIECA is the global oil and gas industry association for
environmental and social issues. It develops, shares and
promotes good practices and knowledge to help the industry
improve its environmental and social performance, and is the
industry’s principal channel of communication with the United
Nations. Through its member-led working groups and executive
leadership, IPIECA brings together the collective expertise of oil
and gas companies and associations. Its unique position within
the industry enables its members to respond effectively to key
environmental and social issues.
www.iogp.org
Registered Office Brussels Office Houston Office
City Tower Bd du Souverain,165 16225 Park Ten Place
40 Basinghall Street 4th Floor Suite 500
14th Floor B-1160 Brussels Houston, Texas 77084
London EC2V 5DE Belgium United States
United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 3763 9700 T +32 (0)2 566 9150 T +1 (713) 338 3494
F +44 (0)20 3763 9701 F +32 (0)2 566 9159 reception@iogp.org
reception@iogp.org reception@iogp.org
Health leading performance indicators

– 2016 data includes data provided
by both IOGP and IPIECA member
companies and organizations,
representing both upstream and
downstream operators and associated
contracting companies.
Participating companies perform a

self-assessment of the their
performance in relation to standardized
statements about the level of
implementation of the company’s own
health management systems.
Two tools (gap analysis tool and

percentage tool) are used to
• assess health performance within
individual companies, and
• compare performance between
different parts of a company and
between participating companies.
Unlike other IOGP data reports, the

health indicators are leading indicators.
There is no separation between
upstream and downstream operations.

Health Leading Performance Indicators 2016data

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Health Leading Performance Indicators 2016data

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REPORT MAY

Health leading performance

Photography used with permission courtesy of ©psphotograph/

IOGP welcomes feedback on our reports: publications@iogp.org

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance

Health leading performance

VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS

1.0 May 2017 First release

The health leading performance indicators

Contributing IOGP and IPIECA member companies 6

Percentage tool results 9

Gap analysis tool results 15

Gap analysis tool – each element in detail 22

Appendix A: Percentage tool example 46

Appendix B: Health management system gap analysis tool example 47

Appendix C: The eight elements of the health management system

Contributing IOGP and IPIECA

ADNOC NOBLE ENERGY

The scope of the health performance indicators reporting also includes

The reporting of all leading or lagging company data is voluntary.

For comparison, Report 2016s, Safety performance indicators – 2016 data,

These are all leading performance indicators.

Percentage tool results

Percentages are calculated as the result of a self-assessment performed by each

Table 1: Percentage tool mean analysis 2011–2016

Element 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Medical emergency management 3.71 3.63 3.47 3.74 3.70 3.68

Health impact assessment 2.44 2.60 2.39 2.70 2.74 2.84

Health risk assessment

Health risk assessment

Health risk assessment

Health risk assessment

Health risk assessment

Health risk assessment

2016 2014 2012

Fitness for task assessment

Figure 8: Percentage tool mean analysis 2011–2016

Gap analysis tool results

Figure 9: Participating companies 2011–2016 (gap analysis tool)

Table 2: Gap analysis tool mean analysis 2011–2016

Element 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Medical emergency management 3.61 3.57 3.59 3.73 3.75 3.79

Health impact assessment 2.56 2.44 2.56 2.86 2.76 2.92

2016 2014 2012

Fitness for task assessment

Figure 10: Gap analysis tool mean analysis 2011–2016

Table 3: Gap analysis tool 2016 results by company

Company Results by element Average by

DF 2.1 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.5 1.4 2.6 1.8 2.3

Sorted by average by company, lowest to highest (26 companies took part)

Table 4: Gap analysis tool 2015 results by company

Company Results by element Average by

YU 2.1 1.9 2.5 2.9 2.9 1.1 2.9 2.2 2.4

Sorted by average by company, lowest to highest (29 companies took part)

Table 5: Gap analysis tool 2016 results by element

Company Results by element Average by

DF 1.4 2.1 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.3

Sorted by element, lowest to highest (26 companies took part)

Table 6: Gap analysis tool 2015 results by element

Company Results by element Average by

YU 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.4

Sorted by element, lowest to highest (29 companies took part)

Gap analysis tool – each element

Gap analysis tool: Element 1 – Health risk assessment