Bill,

Good point. You could have hundreds of 1-day away cases and better overall safety than a company that had a few cases representing profoundly debilitating injuries. The first would have a poor DART rating, while the second might have a great rating.

I've wondered if a better method would include how many lost days, but this raises several difficulties. For example, carpal tunnel syndrome is a relatively common workplace injury that requires days away and usually transfer. However, in some cases, even when proper safety equipment is provided, employee posture and physical fitness play a major role. This complicates creating measurements that can be applied universally.

One of the greatest limitations to the DART rating is that it isn't primarily focused on injured people or safety itself. Instead, it's more of a institutional measure that attempts to quantify the lost productivity and economic implications of workplace industries for businesses, industries, and economies. The DART is based exclusively on the idea that injuries represent a lost return on investment.

I recommend that companies approach safety from a human rather than institutional perspective (Worthington Industries seems to be doing a good job of that). However, the DART is useful in measuring the reciprocal benefits institutions and their stakeholders can expect for investing in their people in this way.