Home » ASTM E2920-26 Incident Management Software & SIF Prevention

Incident Management · Advanced Feature

ASTM E2920-26 Incident Management & SIF Prevention

How Benchmark Gensuite operationalizes the updated standard at enterprise scale — consistent classification, Level 1/Level 2 severity differentiation, and SIF prevention intelligence embedded directly in the incident workflow.

Auto-classification

L1 / L2 applied at case entry

PSI Advisor

68,000+ verified SIF records

Built with

6+ enterprise subscriber orgs

—

Connected to SIF Prevention

The Classification Problem Most Platforms Don’t Solve

For most enterprise EHS organizations, the challenge of adopting ASTM E2920-26 is not understanding the standard — it’s operationalizing it consistently at scale. Across global operations with dozens or hundreds of sites, the same incident can be classified differently depending on the region, the investigator, or the local interpretation of severity. The result is incident data that cannot be reliably compared, trended, or used for meaningful benchmarking.

This is the core problem Benchmark Gensuite’s ASTM E2920-26 capability is built to solve: embedding classification logic directly into the incident workflow so that severity determination is structured, consistent, and auditable — regardless of who is entering the case or where in the world it occurred.

Inconsistent Cross-Site Classification

Different investigators in different regions apply ASTM severity criteria differently — producing classification data that can’t be aggregated or benchmarked reliably across the enterprise.

Manual Tagging Breaks at Scale

When classification decisions are made by hundreds of people across dozens of regulatory environments, a tag applied after the fact — dependent on individual judgment — produces unreliable data.

Level 1 & Level 2 Conflated in Reporting

Combining aSIF and pSIF events in a single report obscures the distinction between catastrophic outcomes and high-potential precursors — undermining the benchmarking value E2920-26 is designed to deliver.

—

Platform Capabilities

How It Works in Practice

Benchmark Gensuite embeds ASTM E2920-26 classification logic directly into the incident workflow so that severity determination is structured, consistent, and auditable — regardless of who is entering the case or where in the world it occurred.

Workflow Integration

Classification Embedded in the Workflow, Not Bolted On

ASTM classification in Benchmark Gensuite is not a separate module or manual tagging step. When a case is logged in the Injury & Illness (I&I) form, the injury and illness type selections drive automatic classification against ASTM E2920-26 Level 1 and Level 2 criteria. The system surfaces the severity designation at the point of entry — reinforcing awareness without creating additional process burden for the EHS professional completing the case.

Automated Level 1 (aSIF) / Level 2 (pSIF) classification: applied at point of case entry based on updated ASTM E2920-26 injury and illness type definitions
Dropdown options rebuilt: to reflect the revised standard — additions, terminology changes, and removals applied across both injury and illness categories
Historical records retain prior tagging: to preserve trend continuity — retroactive reclassification does not overwrite prior classifications
Optional stakeholder notifications: triggered upon ASTM classification, supporting timely escalation for serious events

Classification applied

Level 1 aSIF

Auto-tagged

Platform Capability

Work Relationship Evaluated

ASTM criteria

Platform Capability

ASTM Work Relationship Determination

One of the more operationally complex aspects of ASTM E2920-26 is work relationship evaluation — the structured assessment of whether a serious injury or illness is occupationally related under ASTM criteria. This is a distinct determination from OSHA work-relatedness, and it is a consistent source of classification variability when left to individual interpretation.

Benchmark Gensuite guides EHS professionals through an ASTM Section 5–aligned question set within the case workflow: Was the activity mandated by the role? Was the environment under employer control? Did work conditions directly contribute to the outcome? This structured logic replaces subjective judgment with a repeatable, defensible process — particularly valuable for multi-site operations where regulatory environments and reporting cultures differ.

—

Severity-Differentiated Analytics

Level 1 and Level 2 as Separate Analytical Lenses

A critical implication of E2920-26’s two-level structure is that it demands separate analytical treatment. Combining Level 1 and Level 2 events in a single report obscures the distinction between catastrophic outcomes and high-potential precursors — and undermines the benchmarking value the standard is designed to provide. Benchmark Gensuite’s updated reporting architecture reflects this directly.

Level 1 • aSIF

ASTM E2920-26 Level 1 aSIF Report

Pre-packaged data mining report for confirmed serious injury and fatality events. Supports ASTM rate calculations and executive reporting. Filterable by site, division, injury/illness type, body part, and date range.

Level 2 • pSIF

ASTM E2920-26 Level 2 pSIF Report

Purpose-built report for potential serious events, enabling precursor trend analysis and prevention prioritization. Separate from Level 1 to preserve the analytical distinction the standard is designed to deliver.

Tableau Analytics

Severity-Differentiated Dashboards

Separate Tableau dashboard views for Level 1 and Level 2 — ASTM rate by month, rate vs. year, and cases by division, body part, and accident type. Both levels benchmarkable across the organization.

ASTM Serious Injury Rate Formula — Applied at Both Levels

SUM(ASTM Cases) × 1,000,000 ÷ SUM(Hours Worked)

Separate rate calculations for Level 1 (aSIF) and Level 2 (pSIF) enable more granular benchmarking and clearer executive communication about where serious risk exposure is concentrated.

—

The Core Problem

Classification Is the Entry Point, Not the End Point

ASTM classification does not operate in isolation within Benchmark Gensuite. Level 1 and Level 2 designations feed directly into the platform’s broader SIF prevention infrastructure — including the AI-powered PSI Advisor and energy control analysis — enabling organizations to link ASTM-classified events to investigation workflows, corrective actions, and operational learning.

For organizations that have historically struggled to connect lagging incident data to actionable prevention strategy, this integration represents a meaningful shift: ASTM classification becomes the entry point into a structured operational learning workflow, not a compliance checkbox at the end of it.

Case Logged & Auto-Classified

Injury/illness type selections drive automated Level 1 or Level 2 designation at point of entry in the I&I form

Work Relationship Determined

ASTM Section 5–aligned evaluation completed within the case workflow — separate from OSHA recordability logic

Escalation & Investigation Triggered

Level 1 events trigger stakeholder notifications; Level 2 events surface as precursor signals for prevention prioritization

Severity-Differentiated Analytics

Separate Level 1 and Level 2 rate trending in pre-packaged reports and Tableau dashboards drives executive communication and benchmarking

PSI Advisor — AI-Powered Risk Intelligence

Analyzes incident descriptions against 68,000+ verified serious injury and fatality records to surface hidden risk patterns and flag high-potential events early — turning ASTM classification into proactive prevention strategy.

—

Built With Enterprise EHS Leaders

Built With Organizations Solving This Problem at Scale

The Benchmark Gensuite ASTM E2920-26 capability was not designed in isolation. It was developed and validated through a dedicated subscriber workgroup of enterprise EHS leaders, each bringing distinct operational complexity, global footprint, and classification maturity to the design process. Their requirements shaped not just the feature set, but the underlying logic that makes consistent classification achievable in real-world environments.

Customer Spotlight

Perrigo — Global OTC Pharmaceutical 10,000+ employees • 11+ sites worldwide

Customer Spotlight

How Perrigo Standardized ASTM Classification Across 11+ Global Sites

Perrigo — a global OTC pharmaceutical manufacturer with 10,000+ employees across 11+ sites in the US, UK, and Europe — faced a classification problem common in enterprise EHS: the same incident, evaluated by different teams in different regions, produced different severity determinations. Working with Benchmark Gensuite, Perrigo operationalized ASTM E2920-26 by reclassifying historical records dating back to 2008, surfacing systematic data quality issues, and developing internal classification thresholds that brought global incident data into alignment with the updated standard.

Historical records back to 2008 reclassified against ASTM Level 1 and Level 2 criteria for meaningful long-term trend analysis
Consistent severity logic applied globally — from fragmented multi-framework classification to one ASTM-aligned standard across all regions
Executive dashboards capable of supporting meaningful SIF prevention strategy at board level

—

Transition Planning

The ASTM E2920-26 Transition: What It Actually Takes

Adopting ASTM E2920-26 is a more substantive undertaking than updating a dropdown list. For enterprise organizations managing incident data across multiple sites, business units, and regulatory environments, alignment requires coordinated effort across EHS operations, data governance, and technology. The organizations that have navigated this most effectively have approached it as a program — not a configuration task.

Operational & Governance Considerations

Technology & Platform Considerations

Audit current severity classification logic against E2920-26 Level 1 and Level 2 definitions — identify where your existing SIF methodology aligns, overlaps, or conflicts with the updated standard

Confirm your incident management platform has rebuilt injury/illness type options to reflect ASTM E2920-26 additions, removals, and terminology changes — not just relabeled existing fields

Assess classification consistency across sites: are investigators applying severity criteria the same way? Cross-site variability is the most common driver of unreliable ASTM data in multi-site operations

Verify that automated classification logic correctly applies Level 1 and Level 2 distinctions — and that work relationship determination follows ASTM Section 5 criteria, not OSHA work-relatedness logic

Evaluate historical data quality: legacy incident records may have been classified under the prior standard. Retroactive alignment is often necessary for meaningful long-term trend analysis

Ensure Level 1 (aSIF) and Level 2 (pSIF) are treated as separate analytical dimensions — distinct data mining reports, separate rate calculations, and differentiated dashboard views

Align leadership and cross-functional stakeholders around severity-based metrics. ASTM rate reporting requires different framing than TRIR — particularly for board-level or investor reporting audiences

Confirm historical ASTM classifications are preserved with archived tagging — retroactive reclassification under E2920-26 should not overwrite prior records or break trend continuity

Define how ASTM classification connects to your broader SIF prevention workflow: investigation triggers, corrective action prioritization, and operational learning processes

Assess whether your platform’s analytics support the benchmarking use cases ASTM E2920-26 is designed to enable — severity-weighted rates, trend separation by level, and cross-site comparison

Frequently Asked Questions

Common Questions About ASTM E2920-26

How does ASTM E2920-26 interact with our existing internal SIF program?

ASTM E2920-26 is not a replacement for internal SIF methodologies — it is a standardization layer that makes your SIF data comparable across organizations and industries. The most effective implementations treat ASTM classification as the enterprise-level severity taxonomy, while internal SIF programs continue to drive the investigation logic, corrective action prioritization, and operational learning processes that follow classification. The two frameworks work best when they are integrated in the workflow, not maintained as parallel systems.

What is the operational difference between Level 1 and Level 2, beyond the definitions?

Beyond classification, Level 1 (aSIF) and Level 2 (pSIF) events should drive different organizational responses. Level 1 events warrant immediate escalation, executive visibility, and formal causal investigation — these are confirmed serious outcomes. Level 2 events are arguably more valuable for prevention: they represent the high-potential near-misses and precursor incidents where intervention can still prevent catastrophic harm. Organizations that track Level 2 data rigorously tend to build stronger leading indicator programs, systematically identifying where serious risk exists before an aSIF occurs.

How does Benchmark Gensuite handle the transition from the prior ASTM standard to E2920-26?

The platform preserves historical ASTM classifications using archived tagging, so prior records are not overwritten when updated dropdown values and classification logic are applied. Organizations can maintain trend continuity across the standard transition — historical data remains reportable under prior definitions while new cases are classified under E2920-26 criteria. For organizations undertaking retroactive reclassification (as Perrigo did), the platform supports that process within the existing I&I case management workflow.

Is ASTM work relationship determination the same as OSHA work-relatedness?

No — and the distinction matters operationally. OSHA work-relatedness is a regulatory determination that drives recordability obligations. ASTM work relationship determination is a separate evaluation that establishes whether a serious injury or illness qualifies under ASTM criteria for classification and benchmarking purposes. The two frameworks use different criteria, serve different purposes, and can produce different outcomes for the same event. Benchmark Gensuite maintains separate question sets for each so the two are never conflated in the case workflow.

What does the ASTM E2920-26 capability include within Benchmark Gensuite?

The ASTM E2920-26 Advanced Feature includes: automated Level 1/Level 2 classification within the I&I case form; updated injury and illness dropdown options aligned to the revised standard; ASTM Section 5–aligned work relationship determination; optional stakeholder notifications triggered by classification; pre-packaged Level 1 aSIF and Level 2 pSIF data mining reports; and Tableau-powered dashboards with separate ASTM rate trending for each level. The capability was developed in partnership with a subscriber workgroup and is available as an add-on to the Incident Management solution.

Can Benchmark Gensuite support retroactive ASTM reclassification of historical incident data?

Yes. The platform supports retroactive review and reclassification within the I&I case management workflow while preserving original data with archived tagging for trend continuity. Benchmark Gensuite’s implementation team has supported customers through this process and can advise on classification governance, internal threshold-setting, and data quality validation as part of the transition.

Ready to Operationalize ASTM E2920-26?

See How Leading Organizations Are Operationalizing ASTM E2920-26

Classification consistency, Level 1/Level 2 severity differentiation, ASTM work relationship determination, pre-packaged reporting, and severity-weighted analytics — all within a single incident management platform built for global EHS operations at enterprise scale.