Number of Serious Potential Incidents DEFINITIONS Serious potential incident Serious Potential Incidents (SPIs) are incidents where the potential outcome is a fatality, permanent disabling injury, or has an irreversible or widespread health impact. Usually there are no critical controls remaining to prevent impacts to people, and the actual outcome is dependent on chance. High potential incident High Potential Incidents (HPI) include: • all incidents for which the worst credible potential consequence is assessed as being a Serious Injury (with an LTI of greater than two weeks), or a permanent partial disabling injury, and • those incidents automatically defined as HPIs as per IGO’s reporting standard. These include incidents involving mobile plant and equipment, fires and explosions, falls and falling objects near people, geotechnical failures and inrush, electric shocks, and pressure vessel failures. In FY18 IGO experienced: • 13 Serious Potential Incidents . Of note, we had two ground failure events, two Underground dump truck engine bay fires, two light vehicles vs bogger incidents. • 42 High Potential Incidents . Of note, the most common root cause was a failure to isolate, followed by vehicle interactions, dropped loads and fall of ground. THE NEED FOR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY We all take risks. Business is based on taking informed risks. At IGO, it is our intention that we, as a business, and as individuals, only take risks in an informed way (refer to Risk Management at IGO on page 32). At IGO we will not accept any risk where there is an elevated potential for serious harm or fatality. However, we cannot offer a completely hazard- free work environment; no organisation can. We maintain an expectation of continuous improvement and expect to be held accountable for our performance. Consequently we can, and always will, pursue efforts to make our workplace safer and promote a culture in which the welfare of our people is a central value. FIGURE 18 SPI FREQUENCY Oct 2015 Jan 2016 Apr 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Jan 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Oct 2017 Jan 2018 Apr 2018 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 A MIXED STORY OF EXCELLENCE AND STRUGGLE At IGO we have: • some teams with a strong, well-developed safety culture • some teams where the leader has the vision and motivation to improve safety outcomes • some teams that still remain reactive. The good news is: • 89% of our people believe that they are empowered to stop a job if they feel it is unsafe • 85% of our people have confidence that their manager will act on a safety issue • 81% of our people believe that safety is genuinely important to the business. Only part-way through the journey "I follow rules because I have to! There are too many rules. The rules are dumb... I could have written them better! The safety rules add no or little value!" "I was party to the development of the rules. I follow rules because I want to! I have confidence that others do the same. Safety rules will not keep me safe, but they help." REACTIVE • HSEC by instinct • Compliance is the goal • Delegated to HSEC Manager or safety people • Lack of management involvement DEPENDENT • Management commitment • Condition of employment • Fear/Discipline • Rule & procedure focus • Role of supervisor • Training INDEPENDENT • Personal knowledge, commitment & standards • Safety as a personal value • Practice and habit • Recognition INTERDEPENDENT • Peers helping others to conform • Being each others keeper • Pride in safety performance and safety of workplace Compliance Commitment CULTURAL MATURITY INCIDENT RATES Frequency rate is calculated as the number of incidents x 1,000,000 divided by the total hours worked. IGO SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2018— 59