The task of improving the accounting system and accidents analysis at the industrial enterprises for many years has not lost its relevance, both in Russia and abroad. The root causes identification of injuries is an important stage for the development and implementation of preventive and adaptive measures to reduce the risk of injury rate of the employees.
The article reflects the results of analysis for the main causes of industrial injuries, which shows the relationship between the traditional classification of injuries causes and the classification used at the state level when reporting by the authorized federal agencies. It is established that currently in Russia, when analyzing injury rate, the fairly wide range of possible causes is not considered, primarily related to the «human factor». The comparative assessment is given concerning the deterministic and probabilistic-statistical methods for analyzing industrial injuries, their main advantages and disadvantages are shown. It is established that the deterministic methods of analysis are characterized by a high level of analytical assessment of causes and factors, but the high time and labor costs of the experts involved become a serious difficulty in implementing this method. Probabilistic-statistical methods are more advanced, the methods are used to model predictive values of injuries based on the current information about the occurred incidents.
Also analyzed are the characteristics of industrial injuries indicators, which are result-oriented (post factum) — lagging behind, and process —oriented (forecast) — leading. Lagging indicators are a retrospective description of the labor protection state at a production facility, while leading indicators characterize actions already performed and predict the result of the activities efficiency. The expediency of using leading indicators to make a predictive assessment of the industrial safety state and, consequently, to develop a systematic approach to minimize the number of incidents is justified.
2. On the approval of the Federal plan for statistical work (as amended on August 12, 2020): order of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 6, 2008 № 671-р. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/902101255 (accessed: May 5, 2020). (In Russ.).
3. Rokkel E.P. Draft of the standard classification of technical and organizational causes of injury rate in machine-building industry. Leningrad, 1955. 21 p. (In Russ.).
4. Results of monitoring of occupational safety conditions in the Russian Federation in 2018. Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation. Available at: https://eisot.rosmintrud.ru/attachments/article/47/2018.pdf (accessed: May 5, 2020). (In Russ.).
5. Sviridova T.V., Bobrova O.B. Analysis of Methods Estimate of Industrial Injuries and Professional Risk. XXI vek: itogi proshlogo i problemy nastoyashchego plyus = XXI Century: Resumes of the Past and Challenges of the Present plus. 2018. Vol. 7. № 4 (44). pp. 250–255. (In Russ.).
6. Lukyanchikova T.L., Yamshchikova T.N., Kletsova N.V. Komparativistic Analysis of Production Traumatism: Russia and the World. Ekonomika truda = Russian Journal of Labour Economics. 2018. Vol. 5. № 3. pp. 647–662. (In Russ.).
7. Zhao D. Exploring Construction Safety and Control Measures through Electrical Fatalities: Abstract of Philosophy Degree’s Dissertation. Blacksburg, 2014. 233 p.
8. Narine G. Causes and Prevention of Electric Power Industry Accidents: A Delphi Study: Abstract of Philosophy Degree’s Dissertation. Minneapolis: Walden University, 2019. 373 p.
9. GOST R 12.0.010—2009. Occupational safety standards system. Occupational safety and health management systems. Hazard and risks identification and estimation of risks. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200080860 (accessed: May 5, 2020). (In Russ.).
10. Kondrateva O.E., Kravchenko M.V., Loktionov O.A. Development of the Methods for Assessing the Risk of Damage to Health of the Employees of the Electric Power Industry. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2019. № 4. pp. 63–68. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2019-4-63-68
11. Lingard H., Hallowell M.R., Salas R., Pirzadeh P. Leading or lagging? Temporal analysis of safety indicators on a large infrastructure construction project. Safety Science. 2017. Vol. 91. pp. 206–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.020
12. Versteeg K., Bigelow P., Dale A.M., Chaurasia A. Utilizing construction safety leading and lagging indicators to measure project safety performance: a case study. Safety Science. 2019. Vol. 120. pp. 411–421.