Are Misunderstandings over “Risk” Contributing to Difficulties in Assessing and Managing Safety in the Public Domain?

Abstract

Since 1974 the public sector in the United Kingdom has been required to assess and manage risk as a means of safeguarding its employees and the public. While this risk-based approach still enjoys high-level support, the process of assessing and managing risk has been reported as giving rise to technical difficulties. Of note is that in 1983 it was stated in a Royal Society of London study group report that it may be seriously misleading to multiply the estimated severity of a risk by its probability as a process for comparing and thus prioritising hazards. However, influenced by developments in occupational safety, it has become common to express “risk” as some function of likelihood and severity of consequence. This article investigates whether this definitional matter is in any way problematic within the public sphere by application of an inductive, qualitative methodology entailing in-depth interview with thirty-four UK risk experts whose transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis. This was triangulated against document analysis and observation of the written and spoken word at conferences, training sessions and in the contested environment of the courtroom. An emergent theme amongst the experts is that while the risk-based approach to safety management continues to be strongly supported, there remain fundamental definitional issues over the way the term “risk” is used, and this is leading to confusion, uncertainty and inconsistencies. Evidence of similar definitional issues can be observed in documents, educational literature, and also manifests itself in UK courtrooms. It is concluded that the risk-based approach to safety assessment and regulation is hampered by foundational issues linked to societal understanding of “risk.”