Is 'hazard' more fruitful than 'risk'?

Peter Bateman

In the forthcoming Nov/Dec edition of Safeguard we pose three questions based on stories in the magazine. One of them is this:

The energy-based safety approach focuses on hazards. After decades grappling with the more difficult concept of risk, is it timely to return to place hazards at the centre?

Feel free to respond here on the Forum, or privately here via a Survey Monkey form.

An edited selection of responses will be published in the Jan/Feb edition, but with no names attached. One randomly selected person will receive a prize, namely a copy of the book OHS Voices From The Resistance by Rosa Antonio Carrillo.

Andrew

No.

Hazards, or "hazard management" is a great Make Work scheme where people can wander around looking busy without actually achieving anything. (based on a hazard definition of a thing that can hurt)

Risk, or risk management, should be the centre. That way we are forced to focus on the really important / dangerous stuff (based on a risk definition of the probability of the thing badly hurting someone.)

Chris Peace

I prefer to talk about what could cause an event that could cause harm. Then ask about uncertainty in our estimates and the controls. This leads to the use of bow tie analysis as a way of showing control gaps.
A question every manager should ask is "How sure are you?" and ask for the estimate to be in percent. Any answer less than 90% for OHS should be challenged further. If the answer is 50% or less it is unacceptable. This can be used for OHS or any aspect of a business.

Is 'hazard' more fruitful than 'risk'?

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

Categories

More Discussions