Safety is one of the most scrutinized performance areas in construction, and two metrics consistently rise to the top when evaluating how well a company protects its workforce: the Experience Modification Rate (EMR) and the Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR).

Both are industry-standard lagging indicators, but they measure safety from very different angles: one through the frequency and severity of workers' compensation claims, the other through the frequency of OSHA-recordable incidents.

This guide breaks down EMR and TRIR in practical terms, including:

• how each metric is calculated;
• what aspects of safety they capture (and miss);
• how they are used across the construction industry, and;
• where they provide meaningful insight versus where caution is needed.

The goal is to equip executives, safety professionals, and project teams with a clear, accurate understanding of the metrics that shape so many safety and business outcomes.

Experience Modification Rate (EMR) Overview

What is Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

The Experience Modification Rate (EMR) is a factor used in workers’ compensation insurance to adjust a construction company’s premium based on its claims history relative to similar firms. An EMR of 1.0 represents the industry average. A value below 1.0 indicates better-than-average loss experience and typically lowers premiums; a value above 1.0 reflects worse-than-average losses and increases them.

Insurance carriers and state rating bureaus (or NCCI) calculate EMRs to adjust workers’ compensation premiums based on each employer’s loss experience. This system also creates a strong incentive for contractors to maintain effective safety programs, as lower-risk firms pay sell, and higher-risk firms pay more.

How EMR is Calculated

EMR compares a company’s actual workers’ comp losses over a three-year period (excluding the most recent year) to its expected losses for that size and trade classification. For example, a 2025 EMR typically uses data from 2021 - 2023.

Claims are split into “primary” (emphasizing frequency) and “excess” (capturing severity), then weighted using industry benchmarks and state-specific adjustments. Some states apply an Experience Rating Adjustment (ERA), which discounts minor medical-only claims to encourage reporting. Although the official formula is complex, the simplified idea is:

EMR = (Company’s actual losses over 3 years) / (Company’s expected losses over 3 years).

The result is a single modifier: e.g., 0.75 indicates roughly 25% better performance than average; 1.25 indicates about 25% worse.

What EMR Measures in Safety Performance

EMR reflects the financial impact of past injuries–capturing both frequency and severity–making it a long-term, lagging indicator of safety. Lower EMRs generally reflect fewer or less costly injuries than expected; higher EMRs reflect costlier or more frequent claims.

However, EMR only accounts for incidents that generated workers’ comp claims. Near-misses, property damage, and first-aid-only injuries don’t affect it, and a single costly claim can have more influence than many minor incidents. EMR is therefore best viewed as a measure of insured loss experience, not a comprehensive picture of all safety performance.

Typical EMR Benchmarks in Construction

By definition, the average EMR is 1.0, and most contractors fall between 0.5 and 1.5. High performers (0.5–0.7) often earn substantial insurance discounts, while EMRs above 1.0–1.2 are red flags for many project owners and may require explanation.

New or very small firms typically start at 1.0 due to a lack of experience data. Reducing EMR below that level requires multiple years of low claim activity; conversely, a few severe injuries can raise EMR and keep it elevated for several years.

The table below summarizes EMR benchmarks:

Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) Overview

What is Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR)

The Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) – also called the Total Recordable Injury Rate or Total Case Incident Rate – is an OSHA metric that measures how often a company experiences OSHA-recordable injuries and illnesses, standardized per 100 full-time workers.

A recordable case is any work-related injury or illness requiring medical treatment beyond first aid or resulting in lost days, restricted duty, or other OSHA-defined outcomes (29 CFR 1904). Examples include fractures, stitches, prescription medication, or days away from work. First-aid-only cases do not count.

How is TRIR Calculated

TRIR is calculated with a straightforward formula set by OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The formula is:

TRIR = (Number of OSHA-recordable injuries and illnesses × 200,000) / (Total hours worked by all employees in the year).

The constant 200,000 represents the hours worked by 100 full-time employees in a year, allowing companies of different sizes to be compared. This normalizes the metric to a standard annual rate per 100 workers. For example, if a contractor has 4 recordable cases and 160,000 hours worked:

TRIR = (4 × 200,000) ÷ 160,000 = 5.0

This result means 5 recordable cases per 100 workers (since 160,000 hours is equivalent to 80 FTEs, 4 incidents among 80 FTEs scale up to 5 incidents per 100 FTEs). A TRIR of 5.0 in this example would be higher than average, indicating a relatively high injury frequency. By contrast, if the company had only 1 recordable case in 160,000 hours, TRIR = (1×200,000)/160,000 = 1.25, which would be considered a low incident rate in construction.

Because of its simplicity, TRIR is easy for any organization to compute from its OSHA 300a log data, and it allows comparisons across companies and industries. OSHA, BLS, and safety organizations often publish average TRIR values for different industries each year, which companies use as benchmarks.

What TRIR Measures in Safety Performance

TRIR is a frequency metric: it measures how often recordable injuries occur, regardless of severity. A minor injury requiring stitches impacts TRIR the same as a severe amputation.

A lower TRIR indicates fewer injuries and stronger safety performance; a higher TRIR signals more frequent incidents. Because it summarizes past incidents for each calendar year, TRIR is a lagging indicator, and safety teams often review multi-year trends to understand whether incident frequency is rising or falling.

TRIR has limitations. It excludes near-misses and first-aid cases, and it does not reflect severity. So, a company could have a low TRIR but still experience one very serious injury that signals far greater risk than numerous minor incidents. For that reason, TRIR is typically paired with metrics like DART, severity rate, and qualitative safety assessments.

Typical TRIR Benchmarks in Construction

The average TRIR varies by industry, but construction has recently been trending below the overall private-industry average. BLS data shows the average TRIR across all industries moving from about 3.1 in 2018 to 2.7 in 2023. Construction historically had higher injury rates but has improved in recent years, dropping from roughly 2.5 in 2020 to 2.3 in 2023. That 2.3 rate–slightly below the all-industry 2.4–is the lowest construction TRIR in over a decade, reflecting steady safety gains.

TRIR varies widely across construction trades, with higher-risk sectors like framing and roofing showing much higher rates than painting or site prep. In 2020, TRIRs ranged from 6.8 for framing contractors to 3.1 for structural steel and 1.6 for site-prep contractors. Company size also affects volatility: small firms can see big TRIR swings with just one injury, while large firms’ rates are more stable due to greater exposure hours. These differences make benchmarking more useful when comparing like-for-like trades and company sizes.

A “good” TRIR in construction is ideally zero, but in practice, many firms aim to stay below industry averages. A TRIR under 3.0 generally aligns with the all-industry norm, while around 2.5 is typical for the construction sector in recent years. Anything closer to 1.0–or below–is considered excellent performance and is often seen among top safety-focused contractors. Conversely, TRIRs significantly above peers (e.g., above 4.0 when the norm is ~2.5) signal areas of concern.

The table below summarizes TRIR benchmarks:

How EMR and TRIR Are Used in Construction

Both EMR and TRIR are used by construction firms and their clients as key safety performance indicators, but they come into play in different ways:

Contractor Prequalification & Bidding

Construction owners and general contractors often require contractors to provide a three-year history of EMR and TRIR during prequalification and bidding. These metrics act as quick filters, with EMRs above 1.0 or TRIRs above industry thresholds often triggering concern or additional review. Many owners use systems like Highwire that automatically flag high-risk contractors, giving firms with low EMR and TRIR a competitive advantage. While poor numbers can jeopardize approval, best practice is to allow contractors with EMR > 1.0 to explain context or provide improvement plans.

Insurance and Bonding

EMR directly affects workers’ compensation premiums, meaning low EMRs reduce insurance costs while high EMRs increase them. Because this creates an immediate financial impact, CFOs and risk managers closely monitor EMR, and bonding companies also consider it when evaluating a contractor’s risk. TRIR doesn’t directly affect premiums but can influence underwriters’ qualitative assessments, especially if a company has unusually frequent or severe incidents.

Internal Safety Management

Companies track TRIR frequently–monthly or quarterly–because it provides near-real-time visibility into safety trends and project-level issues. Safety teams often set TRIR reduction goals and use breakdowns by region or project type to target improvements. EMR, updated annually, reflects long-term claim history and is reviewed by executives because it can significantly impact insurance costs and be viewed as an indicator of their risk. Together, both metrics appear in dashboards and management reports, linking safety performance to financial and operational outcomes.

Safety Awards and Recognition

Many industry safety awards require companies to submit their TRIR, and only firms below certain thresholds are eligible for recognition. Highwire’s awards follow this model by evaluating both leading and lagging indicators–most notably TRIR and EMR–along with broader safety management practices. This dual emphasis ensures companies demonstrate not just a strong recent incident record but also a consistent, multi-year commitment to safety excellence. As a result, contractors with low EMR and TRIR often earn higher Highwire ratings, improving their visibility and credibility in the industry.

Employee and Public Relations (Condensed)

Construction firms sometimes share improvements in TRIR or EMR with employees to reinforce safety culture and celebrate progress. Externally, a strong safety record can be a selling point for clients or recruits who value safe workplaces. Workers are often more willing to join companies with low EMRs or TRIRs, as they signal fewer accidents and a stronger safety culture. Ultimately, these metrics influence both internal morale and the company’s public reputation for safety.

Pros and Cons of EMR and TRIR

Both EMR and TRIR offer valuable insights, but also have important limitations. Below is a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each metric:

Pros of EMR:

• Incorporates Severity and Frequency: EMR accounts for how costly injuries are, not just how many occur. Severe incidents (with high claim costs) have a bigger impact, which aligns with the intuition that more serious accidents reflect more safety risk. At the same time, it considers frequency–numerous small claims will push EMR up (though not linearly, small claims are partially discounted). This balanced weighting incentivizes preventing any injuries, especially the costly ones.

• Standardized to Industry Performance: EMR inherently compares a company to its industry peers. This means it adjusts for the hazards of the work: a roofing contractor and a retail employer might both have 2 claims resulting in similar loss in a year, but the roofer will often have a lower EMR, because the expected losses are higher in roofing than in retail work. EMR’s reference to expected losses makes it a fairer benchmark across different types of construction work.

• Direct Financial Impact (Accountability): Because EMR directly influences insurance premiums, it grabs top management’s attention. It creates accountability, as unsafe practices leading to claims will literally cost the company more money, whereas a good safety record is financially rewarded. This can help get management buy-in for safety investments (“if we invest in safety and reduce accidents, we will save on insurance”).

• Multi-Year Stability: EMR is averaged over three years (excluding the most recent year), so it doesn’t wildly swing from one bad month or a single minor incident. This stabilizing effect means one fluke injury won’t ruin a company’s safety reputation overnight. It takes a sustained trend of losses to dramatically change the EMR, which can protect companies from random variation. Likewise, one excellent year won’t immediately erase past problems. This can be a pro in that it encourages continuous improvement, not just short-term fixes.

• Data Integrity: EMR data comes from insurance loss records, not self-reporting. Every claim is documented by an insurer, so there’s less opportunity for a company to manipulate the numbers. In contrast, TRIR relies on internal reporting and OSHA logs, where under-reporting can occur. Generally, EMR is considered a more reliable data-driven metric since it’s hard to hide a workers’ comp claim (and falsifying insurance info would be illegal).

Cons of EMR:

• Lagging and Slow to Change: EMR is a very lagging indicator. It doesn’t include injuries from the most recent policy year and averages the prior three years. As a result, if a construction company makes major safety improvements, it might not see the full benefit in its EMR for 2-3 years. Similarly, a bad year will haunt the EMR calculation for three years. This lack of timeliness can be frustrating. EMR may represent where a company was, not where it is today.

• Complex and Not Easily Understood by All: The EMR formula is complicated, involving actuarial tables, weight factors, and state-specific rules. Many employees or even managers outside of risk management find it hard to understand exactly why their EMR changed. For instance, the impact of each claim on EMR is not transparent without detailed calculation. This complexity means EMR isn’t as useful for day-to-day motivating of workers or frontline supervisors (who may not grasp how, say, a $5,000 claim affects it). TRIR, being simpler, is easier to communicate at the field level.

• Can Be Harsh on Small or Young Companies: Smaller construction firms with just a few employees or limited payroll can see large EMR swings from a single claim. If a small contractor expected to have, say, $50,000 in expected losses over 3 years but had one $100,000 claim, their EMR will shoot up because the formula isn’t fully “credible” at a small scale. There are minimum premiums and ballast factors to temper this, but it’s still an issue. Also, a new company without a claims history starts at 1.0 and cannot benefit from a great safety record immediately (it takes years of data to drop below 1.0). So, EMR’s statistical design can disadvantage small businesses or those with one severe accident.

• Not a Complete Safety Picture: EMR only measures incidents that result in insurance claims and their costs. It ignores non-injury incidents and near-misses, as well as injuries that were minor enough not to result in a claim. A company could have a lot of first-aid cases or unsafe conditions that fortuitously haven’t caused expensive claims yet–EMR would not reflect that risk. In other words, EMR is blind to “precursors” if they haven’t yet resulted in losses. It’s also focused on worker injuries (for workers’ comp); it doesn’t account for property damage incidents or environmental accidents, which are also safety concerns.

• Potential for Incentivizing Under-Claiming: In some cases, companies might be tempted to pay small medical bills out-of-pocket instead of filing a workers’ comp claim, to prevent an increase in EMR. While legally employees have rights to claims, practically a company might persuade for minor injuries. This suppression of claims is not ethical safety management, but the financial pressure of EMR could inadvertently encourage it. (By contrast, OSHA recordability is required regardless of insurance, so an injury that meets the criteria should be recorded even if not claimed – but enforcement of that is another matter.)

Pros of TRIR:

• Simple and Easy to Calculate: TRIR’s formula is straightforward and requires only two pieces of data: the number of recordable cases and hours worked. Anyone with an OSHA 300a log can compute it. This simplicity makes it easy to communicate–employees and managers can grasp what a TRIR of 2.0 means and how day-to-day practices (like avoiding accidents) will keep the number low. It’s an intuitive “safety scoreboard” for the workforce.

• Standardized and Comparable: Because TRIR is defined by OSHA/BLS and used nationally, it allows apples-to-apples comparison across companies and projects. A TRIR of 2.3 means the same thing, no matter if it’s a small subcontractor or a big firm– incidents per 100 full-time workers. Industry averages are published each year, so companies can benchmark themselves (e.g., knowing construction’s average TRIR is ~2.3 in 2023, they can see if they are better or worse). This universality makes TRIR a common language in safety: executives and safety professionals often ask “What’s our TRIR?” as a quick gauge of performance.

• Responsive to Recent Changes: TRIR is usually calculated on a rolling annual or year-to-year basis, so it can show improvement or deterioration relatively quickly. If a company launches a new safety initiative and cuts injuries in half this year, the TRIR will reflect that immediately at year-end (unlike EMR, which would take time to catch up). This near-term feedback is useful for evaluating safety program effectiveness. Also, companies can choose to calculate TRIR for any period (monthly, quarterly) to spot trends or respond to spikes, even if the official reporting is annual.

Cons of TRIR:

• Does Not Distinguish Injury Severity: Perhaps the biggest criticism of TRIR is that it treats all recordable cases equally. A case involving one day of light duty and a case with a life-altering injury both impact the calculation the same. This can be misleading. A company with three minor incidents could have a higher TRIR than one with two severe amputations, simply due to count. Thus, TRIR alone doesn’t communicate the seriousness of the safety issues. Safety professionals often pair TRIR with severity metrics (like DART rate or lost time rate) for that reason. Relying solely on TRIR could mask critical differences in safety outcomes.

• Statistical Fluctuation (Especially for Small Firms): TRIR can be volatile, particularly for small construction companies or short time frames. Because it is essentially an incidence rate, one or two incidents can swing it drastically if hours are low. Research has shown that the occurrence of recordable incidents in many cases is almost random and that TRIR is not a precise or statistically reliable measure for comparing safety performance in most cases. In fact, one study indicated no consistent relationship between a company’s one-year TRIR and its likelihood of a future fatality, and that to achieve predictive stability, you’d need many years (e.g., 8+ years) of data. This means comparing two contractors’ TRIR or judging a contractor by a single year’s TRIR can be misleading–differences might be due to chance rather than true safety culture. OSHA even acknowledges that small employers’ incidence rates can be skewed and suggests pooling multiple years to get a meaningful rate.

• Self-Reporting and Under-Reporting Issues: TRIR relies on the company’s accurate recording of injuries. There is an inherent risk that some employers might under-report or reclassify recordable injuries to keep TRIR low (despite OSHA requirements against this). Smaller firms or those with less sophisticated safety systems might also inadvertently undercount or misclassify incidents. In contrast to EMR (where every insurance claim is logged by a third party), TRIR’s integrity depends on honest internal reporting. This can make TRIR data less trustworthy if a company has a poor safety culture. Additionally, the pressure to maintain a low TRIR (due to client or management expectations) can perversely incentivize not reporting injuries or avoiding medical treatment–a dangerous practice. In summary, TRIR is only as good as the accuracy of the OSHA logs behind it.

• Lagging Indicator (Reactive): Like EMR, TRIR is a lagging indicator. It measures failures (injuries that have happened) rather than directly measuring what is being done to prevent them. OSHA and safety experts caution that focusing on lagging metrics like TRIR alone can lead to a false sense of security or misallocation of effort. Two companies might both have a TRIR of 2.0; one might have since performed a deep root cause analysis on their incidents and implemented robust corrective actions to prevent recurrence, while one may not have made any changes to their safety management system. Looking forward, their risks might be very different even though the retrospective TRIR is the same. That’s why leading indicators (safety training frequency, safety program quality, hazard observations, etc.) are also vital. TRIR doesn’t capture these proactive elements.

• Context Needed for Meaning: A TRIR number by itself doesn’t tell the whole story. If a subcontractor reports a TRIR of, say, 4.0, one might assume they are unsafe. But further context could reveal that the company had a small crew and just one incident (which skews the rate), or that they do a particularly high-risk trade where the industry average is actually higher than 4.0. Similarly, a low TRIR might be the result of great safety effort or just good fortune. Without looking at multiple years of TRIR and understanding the company’s scope of work, relying on TRIR alone to judge safety performance can lead to wrong conclusions.

What These Metrics Mean for Your Safety Program

In summary, EMR and TRIR each measure different aspects of safety performance in construction: EMR gauges the impact of injuries over time relative to peers, and TRIR gauges the frequency of injuries in the short term.

The best practice is to use these metrics as tools for improvement, not just trophies or hurdles. That means understanding their nuances (e.g., TRIR needs enough data to be meaningful, EMR improvements require patience) and supplementing them with qualitative assessments of safety programs. By doing so, construction companies can ensure they are not only hitting numerical targets but truly protecting their workers and projects, which is the ultimate measure of safety success.